Strategic use of observer-perspective questions in couples therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Questions are one of the most frequently used strategies in therapy. There is a body of theoretical work on the kinds of questions that are preferred in specific treatment approaches. However, research on the use of questions in general, how they are formed and what specific therapeutic work they do, is relatively scarce in the literature. In this study, we use the conceptual framework and methods of conversation analysis (CA) to examine how systemic questions soliciting clients' perspective on the partners' thoughts and intents (Observer-Perspective Questions; OPQs) are realized interactively in actual clinical practice and the range of therapeutic work they perform in couples therapy. We identified 78 OPQs from archival data of videotaped time-limited couples therapies, a clinical population working with a professional therapist. From this set of 78 OPQs, five excerpts representing diverse use of OPQs were selected. These excerpts were transcribed in detail capturing not only the textual content but also the prosodic, gestural, and non-verbal aspects of these episodes. Using CA methodology, we identified four specific kinds of changes these questions can promote: progress toward relational optimism, support of positive aspects of the couple's relationship, promoting the concept that the couples' experiences and emotions are interlinked, and introducing new creative relational options. Detailed CA analyses of these clinical excerpts allowed us to identify how the OPQ sequences were built to realize these therapeutically useful moves using various conversational resources progressively and interactively. The conversational analysis of these sequences facilitated the exploration of relationships between the ways the questions are formed, timed, and delivered and the specific functions they perform to move the therapy forward. In conclusion, we make the general argument that examining important therapy events through a CA perspective provides a significant complementary vector to quantitative research on the therapy process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".