Common Factors are Not Islands—They Work Through Models: A Response to Sexton, Ridley, and Kleiner.

In this article, we respond to Sexton, Ridley, and Kleiner (this issue) from three different perspectives. First, we discuss their criticisms as rooted in a portrait of common factors to which we do not subscribe. Second, we discuss points of agreement and partial agreement between our two articles....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Marital & Family Therapy Vol. 30; no. 2; pp. 151 - 158
Autores principales: Sprenkle, Douglas H., Blow, Adrian J.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Apr2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=507898035&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 507898035
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        0194472X
        JMF
      jtl: Journal of Marital & Family Therapy
      issn: 0194472X
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Apr2004
      vid: 30
      iid: 2
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        507898035
        10.1111/j.1752-0606.2004.tb01230.x
      ppf: 151
      ppct: 7
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 641KB
      tig:
        atl: Common Factors are Not Islands—They Work Through Models: A Response to Sexton, Ridley, and Kleiner.
      aug:
        au:
          Sprenkle, Douglas H.
          Blow, Adrian J.
      su:
        Family psychotherapy
        Couples counseling
      sug:
        subj:
          Family psychotherapy
          Couples counseling
      ab: In this article, we respond to Sexton, Ridley, and Kleiner (this issue) from three different perspectives. First, we discuss their criticisms as rooted in a portrait of common factors to which we do not subscribe. Second, we discuss points of agreement and partial agreement between our two articles. Finally, we discuss our areas of clear disagreement with their points of view. In these areas of disagreement we put forth the common factors approach as an empirically supported lens; we discuss the influence of investigator allegiance on the specificity conclusion; and we challenge the idea that the common factors lens is simple. In conclusion, we illustrate how common factors work through a credible therapy model using functional family therapy as an example. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N