Description
ASSIGNMENT OVERVIEW
Therapists are compelled to not only understand the specific theoretical model but are required to apply the model of treatment while working with a client unit. This is what separates a therapist from a good friend who can listen and offer commonsense advice. As a therapist, you are a professional, and your hypotheses, questions, inquiries, and feedback should be grounded in theory. As a result, this assignment challenges you to clearly demonstrate your understanding of the theoretical models’ reviewed this week.
To successfully meet the requirements of this assignment you will provide a summative overview of the two approaches assigned this week. You are required to provide a minimum of three foundational similarities between the two models. In doing so you should clearly offer your rationale for why you have identified said similarities. You will also provide a minimum of three differences between the two models, and again you will address your rationale for why you have identified those specific theoretical differences. You will then offer what you identify as strengths or weaknesses (a minimum of three) of either of the theoretical models in relation to couple therapy. Then you will review the vignette provided below and specify which theory you would use to work with the couple after offering a case conceptualization. You will detail your rationale (a minimum of two relevant rationales) for why you have selected one theory over the other.
Using the language of the theory you have selected, you will develop and share a minimum of five questions you would ask the couple unit that would help the couple move closer towards their goal. In addition, you will clearly articulate the rationale for each question you present. You will specify a minimum of three theory-specific interventions while working with the couple identified in the vignette. You will share your rationale for why you have selected each specific intervention and clearly articulate how the intervention will benefit the couple.
Vignette
Sydney calls your office to schedule an appointment. The appointment is for her and her husband, Liam. Sydney is 38 years of age and works as an attorney at a law firm. She has a 12-year-old daughter from her previous relationship. Liam is 32 years of age and works as a front desk receptionist at the same law firm. Liam has no biological children but actively participates in the care of Sydney’s 12-year-old daughter.
In the initial session, Sydney reports that after 5 years of marriage, they are drifting apart. When you ask what she means by the statement “drifting apart,” she says that Liam does not care about her or their relationship anymore. She shares that over the last few months he stays out late, and there have been multiple nights where he never made it home. She continues by saying that they are unable to talk to one another without arguing or fighting (verbal).
Liam interrupts by saying that what Sydney has shared is only half true. He states that the relationship is drifting apart, however, he does care about their relationship and that is why he is present for the session. Sydney immediately moved forward in her seat, pointed a finger at Liam as she is sitting opposite to him, and calls him a liar. She says, “If you care about our relationship, you would not be having an affair. You would come home after work, and you would make more of an effort in our relationship.”
Liam shakes his head from side to side in a slow but deliberate manner. Looking right at Sydney he says, “I would not be having an affair if the person I was married to cared more about being drunk or high than the relationship. I have grown tired of coming home after work only to find you intoxicated and it does not matter what day of the week it is. I am left to care for your daughter, or she is left to care for herself. Your condition is so bad that it not only affects us at home, but it is now affecting us at work.”
As the couple continues to unpack the presented issues you come to find that Liam was once married, and his 1st marriage ended due to his affair with Sydney. You also discovered that Sydney’s previous marriage ended due to her persistent challenge with alcohol.
Sample Paper Structure: It is recommended that you use the titles below as subheadings in your reflective analysis.
Introduction
In this section, you should clearly introduce your paper and share what you plan to address in the pages ahead.
Theory 1: Summative overview
In this section, you should provide a summative overview of one of theories assigned for you to review this week. The summative overview should be in your words but please make sure to cite your sources accordingly if you paraphrase or decide to directly quote from the text.
Theory 2: Summative overview
In this section, you should provide a summative overview of the other theory assigned for you to review this week. The summative overview should be in your words but please make sure to cite your sources accordingly if you paraphrase or decide to directly quote from the text.
Similarities between both theories
In this section, you should discuss the similarities between both theories to include your rationale (a minimum of three).
Differences between both theories
In this section, you should discuss the differences between both theories to include your rationale (a minimum of three).
Analysis of theories in relation to couple therapy
In this section, you will analyze both theories and offer strengths and weaknesses of the theories in relation to couple therapy (a minimum of three).
Theory selection based on vignette
In this section, you offer a case conceptualization demonstrating your clinical understanding of the presented information. You will then identify the theory you have selected to use to address the challenges presented by the couple identified within the vignette. Please include your rationale (a minimum of two) as to why you have selected one theory over the other.
Theory-based questions and rationale
In the section, you will share a minimum of five theory-based questions that would benefit the couple. Your rationale for each question should be articulated.
Theory specific interventions and rationale
In the section, you will share a minimum of three theory-specific interventions that would benefit the couple. Your rationale for each intervention should be articulated.
Conclusion/Summary
In this section, you should provide a summary of the information you have detailed in this assignment.
Additional Guidelines
This reflective analysis should be between 8 to 10 pages in length not including the title and reference page.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Rubric: Reflective Analysis
Introduction
EXEMPLARY
PROFICIENT
DEVELOPING
EMERGING
Unacceptable
5
4
3
1–2
0
Clearly and creatively,
state’s thesis/purpose of
paper.
Effectively states
thesis/purpose of paper.
Generally, (but lacking
some clarity on one or
more items) states
thesis/purpose of paper.
The introduction lacked
clarity.
Sets the stage for
information to come by
articulating the content
covered in the paper.
Provided a clear and
convincing rationale for
the paper.
Summative
Overview
Sets the stage for
information to come by
articulating the content
covered in the paper.
Provided a brief rationale
for the paper.
Sets the stage for
information to come by
generally sharing the
overall sections of the
paper.
The purpose of the paper
was not clearly articulated.
The introduction
section was not
included as part of the
paper.
Information was presented
at random with no
rationale.
Student struggled to
provides a clear rationale
for the paper.
The introduction clearly
caught the readers’
attention.
The introduction was to
the point and did not
catch the readers’
attention.
18 – 20
14 – 17
9 – 13
1–8
0
Student clearly
accounted for two
summative overviews
covering both assigned
theories for this
assignment. The
information shared was
comprehensive and
deliberate.
Student accounted for
two summative overviews
covering both assigned
theories for this
assignment. The
information shared was
sufficient.
Student used his or her
own words to explain
their understanding of
Student accounted for two
summative overviews
covering both assigned
theories for this
assignment. The
information shared was
general.
Student used a
combination of his or her
own words and multiple
Student struggled to
account for two summative
overviews covering both
assigned theories for this
assignment. The
information shared was
general.
Student used a
combination of his or her
own words and multiple
The summative
overview section was
not included as part of
the paper.
Page 1|9
Similarities
Between
Theories
Student clearly used his
or her own words to
explain their
understanding of both
theories and supports
their explanation by
citing relevant and
appropriate sources.
Student demonstrated a
clear and undeniable
understanding of both
theories by addressing
the foundational
structures of the
theories.
The summative
information shared by
the student for both
theories were accurate at
95% or better.
9 – 10
both theories and
supports their explanation
by citing relevant and
appropriate sources.
Student demonstrated an
understanding of both
theories by addressing the
foundational structures of
the theories.
The summative
information shared by the
student for both theories
were accurate between 85
and 94%.
quotations to explain their
understanding of both
theories. Citation was
applied inconsistently.
Student struggled to
demonstrate an
understanding of both
theories by bypassing the
exploration of the
foundational structures of
the theories.
The summative
information shared by the
student for both theories
were accurate between 84
and 75%.
quotations to explain their
understanding of both
theories. Citation was
applied inconsistently.
Student struggled to
demonstrate an
understanding of both
theories by bypassing the
exploration of the
foundational structures of
the theories.
The summative
information shared by the
student for both theories
were accurate between 74
and 65%.
6–8
3–5
1–2
0
Similarities were
articulated by the
student in a manner that
clearly and effectively
demonstrated their
understanding of both
theories.
Student clearly shared
three or more similarities
between the theories
reviewed for this
assignment.
Student clearly
articulated a detailed
Similarities were
articulated by the student
in a manner that
demonstrated their
understanding of both
theories.
Student shared three
similarities between the
theories reviewed for this
assignment.
Student articulated a
sufficient rationale clearly
explaining the identified
similarities.
Similarities were
articulated by the student
in a manner that generally
demonstrated their
understanding of both
theories.
Student shared no more
than two similarities
between the theories
reviewed for this
assignment.
Student struggled to
articulate a sufficient
Similarities were
articulated by the student
in a manner that generally
demonstrated their
understanding of both
theories.
Student shared no more
than one similarity
between the theories
reviewed for this
assignment.
Student struggled to
articulate a sufficient
The similarity section
was not included as
part of the paper.
Differences
Between
Theories
rationale clearly
explaining the identified
similarities.
Information shared were
factual at 95% or better.
The student deliberately
and appropriately cited
all relevant sources.
Information shared were
factual between 85 and
94%.
The student deliberately
and appropriately cited all
relevant sources.
rationale clearly explaining
the identified similarities.
Information shared were
factual between 84 and
75%.
The student appropriately
cited all relevant sources.
rationale clearly explaining
the identified similarities.
Information shared were
factual between 74 and
65%.
Citation of all sources were
inconsistent.
9 – 10
6–8
3–5
1–2
0
Differences were
articulated by the
student in a manner that
clearly and effectively
demonstrated their
understanding of both
theories.
Student clearly shared
three or more
differences between the
theories reviewed for this
assignment.
Student clearly
articulated a detailed
rationale clearly
explaining the identified
differences.
Information shared were
factual at 95% or better.
The student deliberately
and appropriately cited
all relevant sources.
Differences were
articulated by the student
in a manner that
demonstrated their
understanding of both
theories.
Student shared three
differences between the
theories reviewed for this
assignment.
Student articulated a
sufficient rationale clearly
explaining the identified
differences.
Information shared were
factual between 85 and
94%.
The student deliberately
and appropriately cited all
relevant sources.
Differences were
articulated by the student
in a manner that generally
demonstrated their
understanding of both
theories.
Student shared no more
than two differences
between the theories
reviewed for this
assignment.
Student struggled to
articulate a sufficient
rationale clearly explaining
the identified differences.
Information shared were
factual between 84 and
75%.
The student appropriately
cited all relevant sources.
Differences were
articulated by the student
in a manner that generally
demonstrated their
understanding of both
theories.
Student shared no more
than one difference
between the theories
reviewed for this
assignment.
Student struggled to
articulate a sufficient
rationale clearly explaining
the identified difference.
Information shared were
factual between 74 and
65%.
Citation of all sources were
inconsistent.
The differences
section was not
included as part of the
paper.
Analysis
Theory
Selection
9 – 10
6–8
3–5
1–2
0
In a thoughtful and
creative manner, the
student clearly evaluated
and reported on the
foundational structure of
both theories.
Student clearly
articulated a minimum of
three strengths or
weaknesses linked to
both theories.
Student comprehensively
provided relevant
rationales detailing the
positive and or negative
aspects of the theories.
Student clearly
addressed how each
theory can be used in
couple’s therapy.
The student deliberately
and appropriately cited
all relevant sources.
9 – 10
In a methodical manner,
the student evaluated and
reported on the
foundational structure of
both theories.
Student articulated a
minimum of three
strengths or weaknesses
linked to both theories.
Student provided relevant
rationales detailing the
positive and or negative
aspects of the theories.
Student sufficiently
addressed how each
theory can be used in
couple’s therapy.
The student deliberately
and appropriately cited all
relevant sources.
In a general manner, the
student reported on the
foundational structure of
both theories.
Student briefly articulated
a minimum of three
strengths or weaknesses
linked to both theories.
Student briefly provided
rationales detailing the
positive and or negative
aspects of the theories.
Student sufficiently
addressed how each theory
can be used in couple’s
therapy.
The student appropriately
cited all relevant sources.
In a general manner, the
student reported on the
foundational structure of
both theories.
Student briefly articulated
a minimum of two
strengths or weaknesses
linked to both theories.
Student struggled to
provide rationales
addressing the positive and
or negative aspects of the
theories.
Student struggled to
address how each theory
can be used in couple’s
therapy.
Citation of all sources were
inconsistent.
The analysis section
was not included as
part of the paper.
6–8
3–5
1-2
0
Student selected one of
the two theories
reviewed for this
assignment and detailed
two or more reasons
why they selected the
theory in a creative
manner.
Student selected one of
the two theories reviewed
for this assignment and
shared two or more
reasons why they selected
the theory.
Student selected one of the
two theories reviewed for
this assignment and briefly
shared two or more
reasons why they selected
the theory in a general
manner.
Student selected one of the
two theories reviewed for
this assignment and
struggled to share two or
more reasons why they
selected the theory.
The theory selection
section was not
included as part of the
paper.
Student addressed how
their selected theory
Student struggled to
address how their selected
Student clearly
addressed how their
selected theory would
benefit the clients
identified in the assigned
vignette by presenting a
detailed and relevant
case conceptualization
using the language of the
theory.
would benefit the clients
identified in the assigned
vignette by presenting a
relevant case
conceptualization using
the language of the
theory.
The student deliberately
and appropriately cited all
relevant sources.
The student deliberately
and appropriately cited
all relevant sources.
Questions
Student briefly addressed
how their selected theory
would benefit the clients
identified in the assigned
vignette. A general case
conceptualization was
shared with somewhat
relevance to the assigned
vignette.
The student appropriately
cited all relevant sources.
theory would benefit the
clients identified in the
assigned vignette. A
general case
conceptualization was
shared with limited
relevance to the assigned
vignette.
Citation of all sources were
inconsistent.
13 – 15
9 – 12
5-8
1–4
0
Student clearly
articulated five or more
relevant assessment
questions using the
language of the selected
theory.
Student articulated five or
more relevant assessment
questions using the
language of the selected
theory.
Student articulated less
than five relevant
assessment questions using
the language of the
selected theory.
Student struggled to
articulate less than five
assessment questions using
the language of the
selected theory.
The question section
was not included as
part of the paper.
All five questions were
directly relevant to the
challenges expressed by
the client unit within the
vignette.
The questions were
somewhat relevant to the
challenges expressed by
the client unit within the
vignette.
The questions were
somewhat relevant to the
challenges expressed by
the client unit within the
vignette.
Student provided a
sufficiently rationale for
each question identified
and captured how each
question would benefit
the client unit.
Student provided a brief
rationale for each question
identified and struggled to
capture how each question
would benefit the client
unit.
Student struggled to
provide a brief rationale for
each question identified
and struggled to capture
how each question would
benefit the client unit.
All five questions were
directly relevant to the
challenges expressed by
the client unit within the
vignette.
Student clearly provided
a detailed rationale for
each question identified
and clearly captured how
each question would
benefit the client unit.
Interventions
The student deliberately
and appropriately cited
all relevant sources.
The student deliberately
and appropriately cited all
relevant sources.
The student appropriately
cited all relevant sources.
Citation of all sources were
inconsistent.
13 – 15
9 – 12
5–8
1–4
0
Student clearly presented
a minimum of three
theory specific
interventions they would
use while working with
the client unit.
Student presented a
minimum of three theory
specific interventions they
would use while working
with the client unit.
Student briefly shared a
minimum of three theory
specific interventions they
would use while working
with the client unit.
Student struggled to share
a minimum of three theory
specific interventions they
would use while working
with the client unit.
The intervention
section was not
included as part of the
paper.
Student indicated how
they would use their
identified interventions in
the therapeutic
environment.
Student generally indicated
how they would use their
identified interventions in
the therapeutic
environment.
Student struggled to
generally share how they
would use their identified
interventions in the
therapeutic environment.
Student clearly expressed
why each of the selected
interventions would
benefit the client unit.
Student generally
expressed why each of the
selected interventions
would benefit the client
unit.
Student struggled to
express why each of the
selected interventions
would benefit the client
unit.
The student appropriately
cited all relevant sources.
Citation of all sources were
inconsistent.
Student thoughtfully
indicated how they
would use their identified
interventions in the
therapeutic environment.
Student clearly expressed
why each of the selected
interventions would
benefit the client unit.
The student deliberately
and appropriately cited
all relevant sources.
Writing and
Organization
The student deliberately
and appropriately cited all
relevant sources.
9 – 10
6–8
3–5
1-2
Writing was logical and
organized.
Writing was generally
logical and organized.
Writing lacks logical
progression or
organization.
Writing was not logical or
organized.
Sentences do not form a
cohesive whole and
structure of sentences was
APA Format
Sentences were wellphrased and varied in
length and structure.
Sentences were wellphrased and varied in
length and structure.
Sentences were awkward
and often unclear.
distracting and confusing to
the reader.
Word choice was
consistently precise and
accurate.
Word choice was
generally precise and
mostly accurate.
Word choice was
acceptable, but range of
words is limited or lack
precision.
Words were used
inappropriately.
The writing was mostly
free of errors in
grammar, spelling and
writing mechanics.
There were occasional
errors in grammar,
spelling and writing
mechanics.
The writing had errors
which impact the
understanding of the paper
and caused a distraction.
The paper was the
specified length of the
assignment.
The paper was the
specified length of the
assignment.
The paper was shorter than
the specified length of the
assignment.
5
4
3
1–2
0
Title page was in correct
APA format.
Title page, citations within
text and reference list,
and headings may have a
few minor errors, but APA
format was primarily
used.
APA format was primarily
used, but there were
several small and/or
significant errors in
following format.
APA format was not
followed or was followed
very little.
APA guidelines were
not applied in this
paper.
Citations within text and
reference list were in
APA format with no
errors.
Headings within paper
were in correct APA
format with no errors.
Standards for APA were
adhered to 95 to 100%
Standards for APA were
adhered to no less than
85% of the time.
Standards for APA were
adhered to no less than
75% of the time.
There were several errors
in grammar, spelling and
writing mechanics.
The paper was significantly
(2 pages or more) shorter
than the specified length of
the assignment.
Standards for APA were
adhered to less than 75%
of the time.
Summary /
Conclusion
5
4
3
1–2
0
Summary/Conclusion
was clearly driven by the
content, information,
and/or arguments
presented.
Summary/Conclusion was
supported by the content,
information, and/or
arguments presented.
Summary/Conclusion was
not always supported by
the content, information,
and/or arguments
presented.
Summary/Conclusion was
not supported by the
content, information,
and/or arguments
presented.
A summary or
conclusion was not
included in this paper.
The conclusion provided
the reader with some
support for the purpose
and value of the work.
The conclusion failed to
provide the reader with
sufficient support for the
purpose and value of the
work.
The conclusion provided
the reader with a strong,
clear, succinct support
for the purpose and
value of the work.
The conclusion provided
the reader with clear
support for the purpose
and value of the work.
Reflective Analysis 1
Assignment Overview
Therapists are compelled to not only understand the specific theoretical model but are
required to apply the model of treatment while working with a client unit. This is what separates
a therapist from a good friend who can listen and offer commonsense advice. As a therapist, you
are a professional, and your hypotheses, questions, inquiries, and feedback should be grounded
in theory. As a result, this assignment challenges you to clearly demonstrate your understanding
of the theoretical models reviewed this week.
To successfully meet the requirements of this assignment you will provide a summative
overview of the two approaches assigned this week. You are required to provide a minimum of
three foundational similarities between the two models. In doing so you should clearly offer
your rationale for why you have identified said similarities. You will also provide a minimum of
three differences between the two models, and again you will address your rationale for why you
have identified those specific theoretical differences. You will then offer what you identify as
strengths or weaknesses (a minimum of three) of either of the theoretical models in relationship
to couple therapy. Then you will review the vignette provided below and specify which theory
you would use to work with the couple after offering a case conceptualization. You will detail
your rationale (a minimum of two relevant rationales) for why you have selected one theory
over the other.
Using the language of the theory you have selected, you will develop and share a
minimum of five questions you would ask the couple unit that would help the couple move
closer towards their goal. In addition, you will clearly articulate the rationale for each question
you present. You will specify a minimum of three theory specific interventions while working
with the couple identified in the vignette. You will share your rationale for why you have
selected each specific intervention and clearly articulate how the intervention will benefit the
couple.
Vignette
Sydney calls your office to schedule an appointment. The appointment is for her and her
husband, Liam. Sydney is 38 years of age and works as an attorney at a law firm. She has a 12-
year-old daughter from her previous relationship. Liam is 32 years of age and works as a front
desk receptionist at the same law firm. Liam has no biological children but actively participates
in the care of Sydney’s 12-year-old daughter.
In the initial session, Sydney reports that after 5 years of marriage, they are drifting apart.
When you ask what she means by statement “drifting apart,” she says that Liam does not care
about her or their relationship anymore. She shares that over the last few months he stays out
late, and there have been multiple nights where he never made it home. She continues by saying
that they are unable to talk to one another without arguing or fighting (verbal).
Liam interrupts by saying that what Sydney has shared is only half true. He states that the
relationship is drifting apart, however, he does care about their relationship and that is why he is
present for the session. Sydney immediately moved forward in her seat, pointed a finger at Liam
as she is sitting opposite to him, and calls him a liar. She says, “If you care about our
relationship, you would not be having an affair. You would come home after work, and you
would make more of an effort in our relationship.”
Liam shakes his head from side to side in a slow but deliberate manner. Looking right at
Sydney he says, “I would not be having an affair if the person I was married to cared more about
being drunk or high than the relationship. I have grown tired of coming home after work only to
find you intoxicated and it does not matter what day of the week it is. I am left to care for your
daughter, or she is left to care for herself. Your condition is so bad that it not only affects us at
home, but it is now affecting us at work.”
As the couple continue to unpack the presented issues you come to find that Liam was
once married, and his 1st marriage ended due to his affair with Sydney. You also discovered that
Sydney’s previous marriage ended due to her persistent challenge with alcohol.
Sample Paper Structure: It is recommended that you use the titles below as subheadings in
your reflective analysis.
Introduction
1. In this section you should clearly introduce your paper and share what you plan to
address in the pages ahead.
Theory 1: Summative overview
2. In this section you should provide a summative overview of one of theories assigned for
you to review this week. The summative overview should be in your words but please
make sure to cite your sources accordingly if you paraphrase or decide to directly quote
from the text.
Theory 2: Summative overview
3. In this section you should provide a summative overview of the other theory assigned for
you to review this week. The summative overview should be in your words but please
make sure to cite your sources accordingly if you paraphrase or decide to directly quote
from the text.
Similarities between both theories
4. In this section you should discuss the similarities between both theories to include your
rationale (a minimum of three).
Differences between both theories
5. In this section you should discuss the differences between both theories to include your
rationale (a minimum of three).
Analysis of theories in relationship to couple therapy
6. In this section you will analyze both theories and offer strengths and weaknesses of the
theories in relationship to couple therapy (a minimum of three).
Theory selection based on vignette
7. In this section you offer a case conceptualization demonstrating your clinical
understanding of the presented information. You will then identify the theory you have
selected to use to address the challenges presented by the couple identified within the
vignette. Please include your rationale (a minimum of two) as to why you have selected
one theory over the other.
Theory-based questions and rationale
8. In the section you will share a minimum of five theory-based questions that would benefit
the couple. Your rationale for each question should be articulated.
Theory specific interventions and rationale
9. In the section you will share a minimum of three theory specific interventions that would
benefit the couple. Your rationale for each intervention should be articulated.
Conclusion/Summary
10. In this section you should provide a summary of the information you have detailed in this
assignment.
Additional Guidelines
1. This reflective analysis should be between 8 to 10 pages in length not including the title
and reference page.
2. This reflective analysis is due on Sunday of week 2 by 11:59 pm.
3. This paper should adhere to strict APA guidelines (7th edition).
4. Save your submission with your name and the assignment name in the file, using Last
Name_Assignment. So, if your name were Tammy Overton, and this is Reflective
Analysis, you would title it Overton_Reflective Analysis.
Help with writing and APA format can be found under Course Information.
CLINICAL HANDBOOK OF COUPLE THERAPY
Also from Jay L. Lebow and Douglas K. Snyder
FOR PROFESSIONALS
Common Factors in Couple and Family Therapy:
The Overlooked Foundation for Effective Practice
Douglas H. Sprenkle, Sean D. Davis, and Jay L. Lebow
Couple-Based Interventions for Military and Veteran Families:
A Practitioner’s Guide
Edited by Douglas K. Snyder and Candice M. Monson
Helping Couples Get Past the Affair: A Clinician’s Guide
Donald H. Baucom, Douglas K. Snyder, and Kristina Coop Gordon
Treating Difficult Couples: Helping Clients
with Coexisting Mental and Relationship Disorders
Edited by Douglas K. Snyder and Mark A. Whisman
FOR GENERAL READERS
Getting Past the Affair: A Program to Help You Cope,
Heal, and Move On—Together or Apart
Douglas K. Snyder, Donald H. Baucom, and Kristina Coop Gordon
CLINICAL
HANDBOOK OF
COUPLE
THERAPY
SIXTH EDITION
edited by
Jay L. Lebow
Douglas K. Snyder
THE GUILFORD PRESS
New York London
Copyright © 2023 The Guilford Press
A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc.
370 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1200, New York, NY 10001
www.guilford.com
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording,
or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
The authors have checked with sources believed to be reliable in their efforts to provide
information that is complete and generally in accord with the standards of practice that
are accepted at the time of publication. However, in view of the possibility of human error
or changes in behavioral, mental health, or medical sciences, neither the authors, nor
the editors and publisher, nor any other party who has been involved in the preparation
or publication of this work warrants that the information contained herein is in every
respect accurate or complete, and they are not responsible for any errors or omissions or
the results obtained from the use of such information. Readers are encouraged to confirm
the information contained in this book with other sources.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Lebow, Jay, editor. | Snyder, Douglas K., editor.
Title: Clinical handbook of couple therapy / edited by Jay L. Lebow,
Douglas K. Snyder.
Description: Sixth edition. | New York, NY : The Guilford Press, [2023] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022001583 | ISBN 9781462550128 (cloth)
Subjects: LCSH: Marital psychotherapy—Handbooks, manuals, etc.
Classification: LCC RC488.5 .C584 2022 | DDC 616.89/1562—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022001583
Editors’ note. The case illustrations in this book are based on the authors’ research
and clinical practice. In all instances, names and identifying information have been
changed.
To our friends, colleagues, and precious loved ones
who have encouraged and sustained us over the years.
From the depth of our hearts—we thank you.
About the Editors
Jay L. Lebow, PhD, ABPP, LMFT, is Clinical Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University and
Senior Scholar at The Family Institute at Northwestern. He is also editor-in-chief of the journal Family
Process. Dr. Lebow has engaged in clinical practice, supervision, and research on couple and family
therapy since the 1970s, and is board certified in family psychology and an approved supervisor and
clinical fellow of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT). His numerous publications focus on the practice of couple and family therapy, the relationship of research and
practice, integrative practice, and intervention strategies with divorcing families. Dr. Lebow served as
president of Division 43 (Society for Couple and Family Psychology) of the American Psychological
Association (APA) and on the board of directors of the American Family Therapy Academy (AFTA).
He is a recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from AFTA and the Family Psychologist of the
Year Award from Division 43 of APA.
Douglas K. Snyder, PhD, is Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Texas A&M University,
where he also served as Director of Clinical Training for 20 years. Dr. Snyder has engaged in clinical
practice and training of couple therapists since the 1970s, and is a clinical member of AAMFT. He
is coauthor or coeditor of several books, including Helping Couples Get Past the Affair and CoupleBased Interventions for Military and Veteran Families. Dr. Snyder has served as editor of the Clinician’s Research Digest and as associate editor of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
and the Journal of Family Psychology. He is a recipient of the Distinguished Contribution to Research
in Family Therapy Award from AAMFT, the Distinguished Contribution to Family Psychology Award
from Division 43 of APA, and the Distinguished Psychologist Award from Division 29 (Society for the
Advancement of Psychotherapy) of APA.
vii
Contributors
Robert Allan, PhD, School of Education and Human Development, University of Colorado Denver,
Denver, Colorado
Samuel H. Allen, PhD, The Family Institute at Northwestern, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Christina Balderrama-Durbin, PhD, Department of Psychology, Binghamton University, State University
of New York, Binghamton, New York
Donald H. Baucom, PhD, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Steven R. H. Beach, PhD, Center for Family Research and Department of Psychology, University of
Georgia, Athens, Georgia
Efrain Bleiberg, MD, The Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Baylor College
of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Kristin Bolton, PhD, School of Social Work, University of North Carolina Wilmington,
Wilmington, North Carolina
Douglas C. Breunlin, MSSA, The Family Institute at Northwestern, Northwestern University,
Evanston, Illinois
Will H. Canu, PhD, Department of Psychology, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina
Ryan G. Carlson, PhD, Department of Educational Studies, University of South Carolina, Columbia,
South Carolina
Anthony L. Chambers, PhD, The Family Institute at Northwestern, Northwestern University,
Evanston, Illinois
Andrew Christensen, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles,
Los Angeles, California
Aaron Samuel Cohn, PhD, The Family Institute at Northwestern, Northwestern University,
Evanston, Illinois
Gene Combs, MD, Evanston Family Therapy Center, Evanston, Illinois
Deb Coolhart, PhD, Marriage and Family Therapy Department, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York
Joanne Davila, PhD, Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York
Sean Davis, PhD, California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University,
Sacramento, California
ix
x
Contributors
Sona Dimidjian, PhD, Crown Institute and Department of Psychology and Neuroscience,
University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado
Brian D. Doss, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida
Elizabeth E. Epstein, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School,
Worcester, Massachusetts
Norman B. Epstein, PhD, Department of Family Science, School of Public Health, University of Maryland,
College Park, Maryland
Melanie S. Fischer, PhD, Department of Psychology, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany
Mona DeKoven Fishbane, PhD, Chicago Center for Family Health, Chicago, Illinois
Peter Fonagy, PhD, Research Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology,
University College London, London, United Kingdom
Peter Fraenkel, PhD, Department of Psychology, The City College of New York, New York, New York
Cynthia Franklin, PhD, Steve Hicks School of Social Work, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, Texas
Steffany J. Fredman, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
Jill Freedman, MSW, Evanston Family Therapy Center, Evanston, Illinois
Elana B. Gordis, PhD, Department of Psychology, University at Albany, State University of New York,
Albany, New York
Kristina Coop Gordon, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee
John Mordechai Gottman, PhD, The Gottman Institute, Seattle, Washington
Julie Schwartz Gottman, PhD, The Gottman Institute, Seattle, Washin
