![]() ![]() Recall that Duncan and Moynihan (1994) advocated a more intentional use of the client’s theory of change as well as deliberately maximizing common factor effects (mainly client and alliance factors). Systematic feedback seemed not only a natural extension of this argument but, more importantly, offered a way to make it happen-a structured process to honor the client’s frame of reference while encouraging clinicians to routinely and transparently discuss outcome and the alliance. ![]() PCOMS arose, then, from a desire to privilege clients and an intent to make manifest what mattered most to therapy outcomes, the common factors. Systematic feedback offered a way to make “client directed” happen, a focused, transparent, collaborative process to honor the client’s perspective about outcome and the alliance. In contrast, the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS) started from everyday clinical practice and a desire to privilege the client in the therapy process. Outcome measures and feedback systems largely arose from rigorous psychometric research and the desire to prevent treatment failure or guide intervention from a specific treatment ideology. This post does the same, but for Heroic Clients, Heroic Agencies: Partners for Change. In this historical series of blog posts discussing the journey to client-directed therapeutic services, the previous post shared insights gained from The Heroic Client. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |