Have a Question?
Ask the Graduate
College at our new
Doctoral Dissertation Announcement
Candidate: Christopher J. Richmond
Doctor of Philosophy
Department: Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology
Title: A Study of Intake and Assessment in Solution- focused Brief Therapy
Dr. Alan J. Hovestadt, Chair
Dr. Eric Sauer
Dr. Gary Bischof
Dr. Paul Yelsma
Date: Thursday, November 8, 2007 10:00 a.m.- 12:00 p.m.
3306 Sangren Hall
Most mental health professionals believe that a comprehensive psychological intake interview or assessment, in which information is gleaned from a broad array of areas, is essential in determining the client’s appropriateness for counseling and planning a successful course for treatment (Cavanagh, 1982; Eckstein, Baruth, & Mahrer, 1992; Fine & Glasser, 1996; Hood & Johnson, 1991; Lazarus, 1997; Mosak, 1995). Furthermore, all mental health professionals, regardless of their intake procedures or setting, have a responsibility to adequately interview and assess an individual during the intake assessment (Fine & Glasser, 1996; Shertzer & Linden, 1979). Psychotherapy research has indicated that clients do experience therapeutic benefits as a result of the intake assessment (Hood & Johnson, 1991; Talmon, 1990). However, little attention has been given to the intake interview or assessment, in particular, its impact as experienced by the client.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relative effects of the Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) and Structured Clinical Intake for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) assessment on: client’s evaluation of counselor attractiveness, expertness, trustworthiness, and total effectiveness as measured by the Counselor Rating Form-Short Version (CRF-S); session depth, smoothness, positivity, and arousal as measured by the Session Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ); outcome optimism and goal clarity as measured by the Immediate Outcome Rating Scale (IORS); and client’s current level of distress as measured by the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45.2).
The sample consisted of 30 clients, which included 16 female and 14 male participants. An equal number of participants received the SFBT and SCID-I intake assessments. This study employed a mean comparison design in which participants’ outcome scores on the two intakes were assessed. Participants were randomly assigned to either treatment A (SFBT intake assessment) or treatment B (SCID-I intake assessment). A series of T-tests were conducted on each of the dependent variables based upon the mean scores from the participants within the SFBT and SCID intake groups. Results revealed no statistically significant differences between the two intake assessments, thus suggesting that the SFBT intake assessment was comparable to the SCID-I in regard to the outcome variables.