This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
when we move through someone else’s struggles and stuckness, we often move through our own. Many of the participants seemed to connect appreciatively with Natalie and Caitlin’s rich conclusion that therapeutic dance “made the private public, while maintaining privacy”. This workshop appealed to me

greatly as an improvised dancer, systemic practitioner and social scientist. Specifically, the dancer in me made some connections between this workshop and the conference keynote presentations. Carmel Flaskas (2002, p. 98) has written that some narrative therapists have validated “unlanguaged experience by extending the concept of narrative to include forms of narrative outside languaged narrative”. So that maybe a therapeutic dance-floor is not only “a space for the lived experience of the realness of being human” but also “an opportunity for a recursiveness of (embodied) narrative knowing”. Similarly, Paulo Bertrando has written about the non-verbal aspects of co-creation: “Dialogue is not only an exchange of words. It is first of all a dance” (2007, p. 165). “Do it!” was Natalie and Caitlin’s final

thought about nervousness and dancing. The energetic dancing on the packed Buxton Palace Hotel dance floor that evening suggested to me that maybe embodied dance rhythms had extended beyond Natalie and Caitlin’s experiential workshop to the entire conference.

References Flaskas, C. (2002) Family Therapy Beyond Post- Modernism: Practice Challenges Theory. Hove: Brunner-Routledge. Bertrando, P. (2007) The Dialogic Therapist. London: Karnac.

David Glenister

Update of how families report th life together using the SCORE ou

Peter Stratton (centre) with Emma Silver (left) and Natasha Nascimento, who presented with him on Research that is available for improving clinical practice in ordinary circumstances

Presenter: Peter Strat on Peter started by acknowledging

absent colleagues Ewa Nowotny, Reenee Singh, Chris Evans, Julia Bland and Judith Lask who together constitute the SCORE development-team he leads. His presentation provided the conference an opportunity to look at data generated so far from SCORE 15, which is making steady progress towards validation. Once the test of validity is passed, it will be possible to make a strong case for its routine use in clinical work with families, particularly if it can be argued that we now have a happiness indicator, a proven measure of change in family life. Peter started by explaining the key

principles of SCORE: that it needs to be a meaningful tool for both families and therapists, free to use, able to be completed in ten minutes and in line with the requirements of the CAMHS Outcome Research Consortium. Peter gave a pot ed history of the SCORE

project, which started with 56 items before a 40 item SCORE became a valid measure aſt er it was conducted with 228 families comprising 510 individuals reaching a Cronbach Alpha score of .934 with split- half reliability of .833. Peter explained to


the statistically challenged amongst us that this is an excellent result, demonstrating high levels of acceptability for all 40 items. As for SCORE 15, Peter said they now

have data taken from the start of the fi rst and fourth sessions of therapy with 40 families comprising 100 people. T ere has been debate within the research team as to whether or not it may be too early to measure change aſt er what is eff ectively only three full family therapy sessions. However, results so far show some improvement between time 1 and time 2, even if numbers are not yet to a level of clinical signifi cance. On measures such as the severity of symptoms, ability to cope as a family and the usefulness of therapy, there were encouraging signs of change. It was particularly interesting to hear

about those items in which clinical families were most diff erent from non-clinical families: “We seem to go f om one crisis to another

in my family.” “It feels miserable in our family.” “We fi nd it hard to deal with everyday

problems.” “T ings always seem to go wrong for my

family.” “In my family we blame each other when things go wrong.”

Context February 2012

AFT National Conference workshop reports

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64