MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116961066 · doi:10.1521/jsyt.2025.44.2.45

Conceptual and Technical Adaptability of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy with Taiwanese Clients: A Thematic Analytical Qualitative Study

2025· article· en· W7116961066 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hsuan-Jung Chen, Ben C. H. Kuo, Wei-Su Hsu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Systemic Therapies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptabilityThematic analysisQualitative researchEthnic groupConceptual frameworkSolution focused brief therapyTheme (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative study examined the lived experiences of Taiwanese counselors in applying solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) to work with Taiwanese clients of ethnic Chinese heritage in Taiwan. Specifically, this investigation explored the conceptual and technical compatibility between SFBT and traditional Taiwanese cultural values and norms. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 SFBT-practicing counselors, and the data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The results yielded two main themes and 11 embedded subthemes. Importantly, the main themes highlighting SFBT’s cultural relevance and adaptability with Taiwanese clients are represented by Theme 1: Conceptual and Philosophical Compatibility Between SFBT Principles and Taiwanese Cultural Values, and Theme 2: Technical Compatibility and Adaptation of the SFBT Techniques to the Taiwanese Culture. Based on these thematic results, the interconnection between SFBT and Taiwanese-Chinese cultural values, beliefs, and norms is analyzed and explained. As well, the study’s implications for future research are considered and discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Systemic TherapiesSame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207