213

o
ut
it
st
In

Enhancing Cognitive Therapy for Depression With Functional Analytic

Psychotherapy: Treatment Guidelines and Empirical Findings
R o b e r t J . K o h l e n b e r g , J o n a t h a n W. Kanter, M a d e l o n Y. Bolling,
a n d C h a u n c e y R. Parker, University o f W a s h i n g t o n
Mavis Tsai, Private Practice, Seattle

de

ia

c
en
Ci

Two enhancements to cognitive therapy ( C T ) - - a broader rationale for the causes and treatment of depression, and a more intense
focus on the client-therapist relationship--were evaluated in a treatment development study. The enhancements were informed by
Functional Analytic Psychotherapy (FAP; tL J. Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991), a treatment based on a behavioral analysis of the change
process. FAP Enhanced Cognitive Therapy (FECT) includes 7 specific techniques that CT therapists can use to make their treatment
more powerful and to address the diverse needs of clients more effectively. The results indicate that FECT produced a greaterfocus on
the client-therapist relationship and is a promising approach for improving outcome and interpersonal functioning. It also appears
that a focus during sessions on clients 'problematic cognitions about the therapist adds to efficacy.

Co

al

tu

uc

nd

relationships. He felt people rejected him and he was unable to achieve closeness with others. According to Beck
Depression Inventory (BDI) scores, he was no longer depressed at the end of our treatment, and reported making progress in being more intimate with his wife and
children. In this excerpt from the last session, Mr. G. describes how he experienced the two types of therapy and
what he learned:
There's a lot of stuff going on in my personal life
that we've been working on here in depression and
so on, and that has led to maybe the cognitive therapy way of handling things and looking a t . . . , you
know, the daily activity log and then doing the
t h o u g h t records and analyzing thoughts and how
they lead to things. So that's over here [with the
first 8 sessions of CT]. And then on this other part,
which I definitely got into with you [the second 12
sessions o f FECT], was in my personal relationships
and how that works, on both sides, myself and the
other person. And then it became how that
occurred for you and me as an example of [my
appearing to others as] ominous. It's something I
learned with you so that it would not persist in
unintentionally coloring my relationships.

es

al

tu

ex

nt

Co

as

pi

ra

Te

In

Mr. G. acknowledges the utility of standard CT, which

he received directly during the first eight sessions and in
a modified form during the second phase of treatment.
Second, he states that during FECT, he became aware, for
the first time, of an interpersonal problem involving
others perceiving something ominous about him that interferes with his relationships. Third, he acknowledges
that this same interpersonal problem that occurred in his
daily life also occurred in the therapy session between
him and his therapist. Finally, he suggests that learning to

te

1077-7229/02/213-22951.00/0
Copyright 2002 by Association for Advancement of Behavior
Therapy. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

as

Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 9, 2 1 3 - 2 2 9 , 2002

iv

at

gr

AVEYOU encountered clients who are resistant to the

methods of cognitive therapy (CT), insisting that
their feelings rule no matter what thoughts they have?
Have you ever felt, while doing CT, that you would like to
focus more on the client-therapist relationship? Have you
ever wanted to make your treatment more intense and interpersonal, so that the therapy relationship itself is a primary vehicle for client change? In this article we describe
a treatment for depression that enhances CT so that it addresses the diverse needs of clients and has wider appeal
for both clients and therapists. The enhancements were
i n f o r m e d by Functional Analytic Psychotherapy (FAP;
R.J. Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991), a treatment based on a behavioral analysis of the process of therapeutic change.
Perhaps the experience of Mr. G., a client who received both CT and FAP-enhanced CT (FECT), can best
describe the qualitative difference between the two approaches. Mr. G. was a subject in our treatment developm e n t study who received standard CT. When, after the
8th session, his therapist experienced medical problems,
Mr. G. switched to another therapist (co-author Chauncey
Parker) who used FECT for the remaining 12 sessions.
Obviously there is considerable confounding, but this client was in the unique position of being able to describe
and compare his experience of both treatments. Mr. G., a
44-year-old with a long-standing history of major depression, had not responded to a variety of prior medications
and psychosocial treatments. A m o n g his presenting
problems was a deep dissatisfaction in his interpersonal

Kohlenberg et al.

214

o
ut
it
st
In

deal with this p r o b l e m with the therapist would help him

in future relationships with others.
T h e m e t h o d s a n d p r o c e d u r e s of FECT are designed to
p r o d u c e the type of therapy e x p e r i e n c e that this client
describes, capitalizing b o t h on the strengths o f CT a n d
on the use o f the t h e r a p e u t i c relationship as a tool for improving interpersonal relationships. D u r i n g this treatmerit d e v e l o p m e n t study, we also g e n e r a t e d strategies for
training cognitive therapists to a d d FECT to their repertoires, a n d sought to provide a preliminary assessment of
the efficacy o f FECT c o m p a r e d to s t a n d a r d CT. In this
article, we d e s c r i b e FECT t h e o r y a n d t e c h n i q u e s a n d
p r e s e n t findings from the t r e a t m e n t d e v e l o p m e n t study
c o m p a r i n g FECT to s t a n d a r d CT.

(a)

r-->

(b)

>

>

de

B
(c)

Figure 1. Some cognition-behavior relationships according to

the FECTexpanded rationale. A = Antecedent Event; B = Belief/
Cognition; C = Consequence (emotional reaction). (a) Represents the standard cognitive model. (b) Represents a situation in
which there is no cognition. (c) Represents a situation in which
cognition precedes but is not causally related to the reaction.

FECT

ia

c
en
Ci

T h e FECT e n h a n c e m e n t s to s t a n d a r d CT are int e n d e d to be user-friendly for e x p e r i e n c e d cognitive therapists, a n d rely u p o n the skills, training, forms, procedures, a n d m e t h o d s o f CT. In particular, FECT was built
on the f o u n d a t i o n ofA. T. Beck, Rush, Shaw, a n d Emery's
(1979) widely p r a c t i c e d a n d empirically validated treatm e n t for depression. T h e two major FECT enhancements to s t a n d a r d CT are (a) the use o f an e x p a n d e d rationale for the causes a n d t r e a t m e n t of depression and
(b) a greater use o f the client-therapist relationship as an
in vivo teaching opportunity.

al

tu

uc

nd

Co

es

al

tu

ex

nt

Co

as

pi

ra

Te

te

In

1Technically, the term cognition refers to cognitive products, structures, or processes (Hollon & K~iss, 1984). Due to space limitations,
we have not made this distinction here, but we have shown elsewhere
that our analysis is consistent with the more technical meanings of
cognition (Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991, chapter 5).

as

iv

at

gr

Enhancement 1: The Expanded Rationale

T h e e x p a n d e d rationale is based on the behavioral
view of cognition a n d its emphasis on historical explanations for c u r r e n t behavior (R.J. K o h l e n b e r g & Tsai, 1991,
c h a p t e r 5). Cognition is defined as the activity o f thinking, planning, believing, a n d / o r categorizing. Thus, cognitions, although covert, are simply behavior. This casts
the often-made distinction between thoughts, feelings,
and behavior, a n d the primacy of the c o g n i t i o n - b e h a v i o r
relationship, in a new light: T h e relationship between
cognition a n d behavior becomes a Behavior X - B e h a v i o r
Y relationship, that is, a sequence of two behaviors. Here,
Behavior X is cognition a n d Behavior Y is external behavior o r e m o t i o n a l response. This in turn a c c o m m o d a t e s a
variety of possibilities as to the causal c o n n e c t i o n between cognition (Behavior X) a n d subsequent behavior
(Behavior Y). T h e d e g r e e o f control e x e r t e d by cognition
over subsequent behavior is on a c o n t i n u u m a n d varies
d e p e n d i n g on the particular client's history.
This view has implications for the n a t u r e of the rationale that is p r e s e n t e d to clients in standard cognitive
therapy for depression. For the purposes o f this discussion, the cognitive hypothesis is r e p r e s e n t e d as an A-B-C
sequence in which A represents an event or stimulus, B
represents cognition in response to A, and C represents

the resulting behavior o r e m o t i o n a l response (A. T. Beck,

1967, p. 322). This is illustrated in Figure 1 (a). Both CT
a n d FECT therapists p r e s e n t this s t a n d a r d cognitive hypothesis a n d tell clients that their beliefs, attitudes, a n d
thoughts a b o u t external events lead to p r o b l e m a t i c feelings a n d maladaptive behavior: t FECT therapists, however, tell clients that o t h e r possibilities m i g h t also exist in
addition to the A-B-C paradigm. For example, Figure 1 (b)
represents the client who says, "I j u s t reacted, I d i d n ' t
have any p r e c e d i n g thoughts or beliefs." In this case, the
FECT therapist is m o r e accepting of the idea that there is
no cognition at work. Figure 1 (c) represents yet a different
client who says, "I truly believe that I do not have to be
perfect, b u t I still feel like I have to be." In this case, the
FECT m o d e l a c c o m m o d a t e s the possibility that the client
may have a "B" that does not play a role in causing the
p r o b l e m a t i c "C," even t h o u g h there is a t e m p o r a l seq u e n c i n g that resembles the o n e posited in the cognitive
hypothesis. That is, the FECT view is that it is possible to
have a belief that precedes the p r o b l e m a t i c e m o t i o n
a n d / o r behavior but is n o t causally related. T h e r e are
several o t h e r variations o f the A-B-C p a r a d i g m that might
also have b e e n i n c l u d e d in Figure 1. F o r example, A-C-B
would r e p r e s e n t a client who reacts a n d then has a
thought. For clients whose e x p e r i e n c e matches A-B-C as
shown in Figure 1 (a), FECT proposes that the m e t h o d s
o f cognitive therapy would be maximally effective a n d
should be used. However, for clients whose e x p e r i e n c e

Enhancing Cognitive Therapy

o
ut
it
st
In

corresponds to one of the other paradigms shown in Figure 1, standard cognitive therapy might result in a clienttherapy mismatch and a less effective treatment. It is also
possible that multiple paradigms exist for a given client,
or that paradigms change from situation to situation.
The use of the e x p a n d e d rationale is illustrated in the
case of a client, Mr. D. Mr. D. had a problem of getting
angry too easily. He b r o u g h t up an example of getting angry at other drivers at a four-way stop while driving to his
appointment. He explained how the driver in front of
him could have moved forward a little and allowed Mr. D.
to make a right-hand turn. In this example, the therapist
does a brief assessment to determine if A-B-C or an alternate paradigm should also be considered in Mr. D.'s
treatment:

de

c
en
Ci

ia

MR. D.: I thought, "You idiot!"

THERAPIST: You r e m e m b e r during our discussion o f
the [FECT] brochure that t h o u g h t sometimes
precedes feelings but can also occur after. At the
four-way stop, you thought, "You idiot!" Were you
aware as to whether you had that t h o u g h t first and
then got angry, or did you get angry first and then
have the thought?
MR. D.: I got angry first.

al

tu

uc

nd

Co

pie, in comparative outcome studies it is not u n c o m m o n

for a percentage of clients to drop out of treatment because they feel mismatched to the assigned treatment
(Addis, 1995/1996). Addis also reported that mismatches
during CT for depression most often occurred because
the CT rationale did not address the patient's desire to
view their problems as the result of history and experience. Similarly, Castonguay, Goldfried, Wiser, Raue, and
Hayes (1996) f o u n d that when therapists persisted in the
application of cognitive techniques despite clients' statements that the model was not appropriate, the therapeutic a l l i a n c e - - a n d treatment outcomes--suffered. Thus,
the FECT e x p a n d e d rationale is expected to enhance
outconle.

Enhancement 2: A Greater Use of the

Client-Therapist Relationship
In FECT, the client-therapist relationship is seen as a
social environment with the potential to evoke and
change actual instances of the client's problematic behavior in the here and now (Follette, Naugle, & Callaghan,
1996; R.J. Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991). For example, a client who doesn't express anger in his daily life because he
assumes terrible things will h a p p e n if he does, might get
angry at the therapist but not express this anger because
of his assumption. In FAP terminology, the client's assumption about the therapist is referred to as Clinically
Relevant Behavior (CRB), an actual here-and-now occurrence, in the therapy session, of daily life problematic
thinking or behavior. According to FAP theory, there are
extraordinary opportunities for significant, therapeutic
change when CRBs occur and are recognized by the therapist. The therapist who notices CRB will be more likely
to shape immediately, encourage, and nurture improvements in vivo (R.J. Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991, chapter 2).
Accordingly, several specific FECT techniques are designed to increase therapist awareness of CRBs. It should
be noted that CRBs are real, they occur naturally during
therapy, and they differ from the p r o m p t e d a n d / o r
scripted within-session behaviors of role-playing, behavioral rehearsal, or social skills training (R. J. Kohlenberg,
Tsai, & Dougher, 1993).
The FECT use of the client-therapist relationship as an
in vivo learning opportunity is based on a well-known
property of reinforcement: The closer in time and place
a behavior is to its consequences, the greater will be the
effect of those consequences. It follows, then, that treatm e n t effects will be stronger if clients' problem behaviors
and improvements occur during the session, as they are
closest in time and place to the available reinforcement
from the therapist. Rather than only talking about the client's problems, the therapist can effect positive change as
behaviors occur. Goldfried (1985) described these special opportunities as "in vivo" cognitive behavioral work

es

al

tu

ex

nt

Co

as

pi

ra

Te

te

In

as

iv

at

gr

Although the standard cognitive hypothesis states that

depressogenic schemas acquired developmentally create
a vulnerability to depression, the FECT expanded rationale increases the emphasis on historical factors more
broadly defined, to account for the client's reactions to
the world either along with or as an alternative to the A-B-C
hypothesis. This is consistent with a behavioral analysis of
problems, tracing causality to external sources occurring
in the reinforcement history of the individual (R. J.
Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991). Although changing cognitions
is often a successful therapeutic strategy, it is sometimes
advantageous to take an historical view of how the problem developed. Recognizing historical antecedents that
account for clients' problems and their negative cognitions gives them a way to explain their behavior to themselves that may be less blaming than cognitive explanations by themselves.
The expanded rationale is expected to improve the
match between client and treatment. As recently pointed
out in this journal (Addis & Carpenter, 2000), clients who
respond favorably to the treatment rationale in CT for
depression are more likely to improve following treatm e n t (Addis 1995/1996; Addis &Jacobson, 1996; Fennel
& Teasdale, 1987; Teasdale, 1985). Addis and Carpenter
hypothesize that the match between the client and the
treatment rationale promotes more favorable outcome
due to such factors as increased rapport, therapeutic alliance, and willingness to do homework. O n the other
hand, a mismatch can have deleterious effects. For exam-

215

2.16

Kohlenberg et al.
and noted that situations when these opportunities occur
are "more powerful than imagined or described" situations (p. 71). The same idea is found in the widely accepted notion that in vivo exposure treatment is more
powerful than in-office treatment. This FAP view of the
client-therapist relationship differs both from the notion
of collaboration in cognitive therapy and from therapeutic alliance (Callaghan, Naugle, & Follette, 1996; Follette
et al., 1996; B. S. Kohlenberg, Yeater, & Kohlenberg,
1998). Although there are thndamental theoretical differences between FAP and psychoanalysis (see R. J.
Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991, chapter 7), the notion of CRBs
as special opportunities for therapeutic change has much
in c o m m o n with the psychoanalytic concept of working
with transference (R.J. Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1994).

o
ut
it
st
In

Generalization From Treatment to Daily Life

As therapy progresses, clients display more CRB2s (improvements in session). As discussed in R.J. Kohlenberg
and Tsai (1991), generalization of improvements from
the client-therapist interaction to daily life is expected to
occur naturally but can be augmented by offering interpretations that compare within-session interactions to
daily life. For example, the therapist might say, "Your belief that I will do something terrible to you if you criticize
the therapy seems to resemble the belief you have about
others in your life." Successful within-session hypothesis
testing and consequent m o o d improvement would similarly be related to uses in daily life. Standard CT homework assignments can be built from this in vivo work. For
example, the therapist may say, "Now that you have found
that your belief--that I will respond poorly to you if you
express your feelings directly to m e - - i s inaccurate, do
you think a good homework assignment would be to
check out that belief with your wife?"

de

ia

c
en
Ci

The Two Main Forms of Clinically Relevant Behavior:

CRB1 and CRB2
The use of the therapeutic relationship depends on
the therapist's ability to recognize the client's problems
as they occur in session. Such problematic behavior is
termed CRB1. Equally important is the therapist's ability
to recognize improvements as they occur in-session.
These improvements are termed CRB2.

al

tu

uc

nd

Co

es

al

tu

ex

nt

Co

as

pi

ra

Te

In

1. Setting the Scene Early

The FECT interest in history and observation of in
vivo client behavior is established early. Either before
treatment begins or during the first session of FECT, clients are given the following assignment: "Write an outline,
a time chart, or an autobiography of the main events, enduring circumstances, highlights, turning points, and relationships that have shaped who you are as a person,
from your birth to the present time." T h e assignment

te

as

iv

at

gr

Problematic Cognitive and Interpersonal Behaviors

as CRBs
CRBls and CRB2s (problems and improvements in
the here and now) may be cognitive behavior a n d / o r interpersonal behavioi: Cognitive CRBs are in-session, actual occurrences of problematic cognition (thinking, assuming, believing, perceiving). In the example of Mr. D.,
the angry client, the client's assumption that "the therapist will do something terrible if I express my anger" is a
problematic in-session cognition. The occurrence of a
problematic cognitive CRB provides a special opportunity for the therapist to do in vivo CT. For example, the
therapist could use a thought log or empirical hypothesistesting pertaining to the here-and-now client-therapist interaction. Cognitive CRBs are also identified as having
special significance in the CT variants of Young (1990)
and Safran and Segal (1990).
The angl y client example involved both cognitive and
interpersonal CRBs. Interpersonal CRBs are actual insession problematic interpersonal behavior. One CRB1
may have been that the client did not express his angry
feelings toward the therapist. The therapist could have encouraged or p r o m p t e d the client to express his anger instead of employing the in vivo cognitive intervention (e.g.,
the thought log) if such expression is conceptualized as a
CRB2, or improvement in client behavior. This points up
the importance of generating a clear case conceptualization
from the outset and updating it as treatment progresses.
(Case conceptualization is outlined below.)

Putting the Enhancements Into Practice:

Seven Specific Techniques
IYeatment occurs simultaneously on two levels. At the
first level, FECT therapists conduct A. T. Beck and colleagues' (1979) CT for depression. Beck's CT consists of
a 20-session structure and specific procedures such as (a)
defining and setting goals, (b) stnmturing the session
(setting and following an agenda; eliciting feedback from
the client at the end of the session), (c) presenting a rationale, and (d) using cognitive-behavioral strategies and
techniques. The FECT therapist, however, uses the expanded rationale rather than the standard CT rationale.
This requires the flexibility to drop the A-B-C hypothesis
if it does not match the client's experience a n d / o r if the
client is not progressing.
The second level of therapy is perhaps the most important. At the same time that the above technical procedures are used, FECT therapists are observing the clienttherapist interaction and looking for the client's daily life
problems and dysfunctional thoughts actually occurring
in the here and now, within the context of the clienttherapist relationship. The following seven techniques
highlight the FECT approach and help the therapist to
work on both levels.

Enhancing Cognitive Therapy

o
ut
it
st
In

indicates to the client that the therapist is interested in

history. At another level, it gives the therapist an opportunity to observe how the client deals with this task (e.g.,
procrastinates, gives sparse information, completes volumes of writings, assertively refuses to do it) and helps
generate hypotheses about potential CRBs that might appear in therapy. Both the historical information and the
hypothesized CRBs enter into the formulation of an initial case conceptualization as described below.

de

2. Present the Expanded Rationale and Elicit Feedback

Underscoring FECT's inclusion of CT, the therapist
presents a treatment rationale to the client in the form of
two brochures, the Beck Institute's "Coping With Depression" (A. T. Beck & Greenberg, 1995) and the FECT brochure (R. J. Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1997). "Coping With
Depression" presents the cognitive hypothesis, a preliminary oudine of types of thinking errors depressed people
c o m m o n l y make, and a brief overview of the direction of
treatment. The FECT brochure acknowledges the A-B-C
hypothesis and the value of learning new ways to think. It
also allows for the possibility that the A-B-C paradigm
might not always match the particular client's experience
and discusses alternative paradigms. For example, the
brochure states,

ia

c
en
Ci

al

tu

uc

nd

Co

3. Use Case Conceptualization as an Aid

to Detecting CRB

In FECT, case conceptualization is the sine qua n o n of

therapeutic work. It is in fact a functional analysis of relevant client behaviors (thinking and feeling in addition to
physical and verbal events). As discussed in R.J. Kohlenberg and Tsai (2000), FECT case conceptualization serves
three purposes. First, it generates an account of how the
client's history resulted in the current daily life problems.
It includes an explanation of how current problem behaviors were adaptive at the time they were acquired, and
sets the scene for the client to learn new ways of behaving. Second, it identifies possible cognitive p h e n o m e n a
that might be related to current problems. Third, and
most importantly, FECT case conceptualization identifies
and predicts how clinically relevant behavior--daily life
problems (including dysfunctional thinking; CRB1) and
improvements ( C R B 2 ) - - m i g h t occur during the session
within the client-therapist relationship. Hence, the case
conceptualization helps therapists notice CRBs as they
occur and to use these opportunities to shape and reinforce improvements in vivo.
The FECT case conceptualization form is a working
d o c u m e n t to help maintain a focus on the goals of therapy and increase therapist detection of in-session problematic thinking and behavior and their improvements.
The form is filled out as soon as there is e n o u g h information. Sometimes it is filled out jointly with the c l i e n t - - a t
the very least, it is presented to the client for feedback,
and modified t h r o u g h o u t the course of therapy as more
information is gathered. A more detailed description of
this form and its application can be f o u n d in R.J. Kohlenberg and Tsai (2000). A description of the form's six columns follows.
Daily life problems. These are the client's complaints.
For example, Mr. G. complained of a lack of close relationships and rejection by others.
Relevant history. History refers to childhood and significant events over the life span, or more recent experiences
that account for the thinking, actions, and meaning that
may be implicated in daily life problems. The purpose of
this column is to generate an explanation of how the current problems were learned and how they were adaptive
at the time they were acquired. Historical interpretations
set the scene for the client to learn new ways of behaving.
For example, Mr. G. reported a family environment that
severely punished warmth and vulnerability.

es

al

tu

ex

nt

as

pi

ra

Te

te

In

as

Corresponding in-session problems (interpersonal/behavioral

CRBls). It was hypothesized that Mr. G. would act in ways

iv

at

gr

The FECT brochure emphasizes focusing on the here

and now and using the client-therapist relationship to
learn new patterns of behavior. A more detailed description of the FECT rationale can be f o u n d in R.J. Kohlenberg and Tsai (2000).
Presenting the rationale is a critical juncture in therapy and must be accompanied by therapist observation of
how the rationale is received by the client, what parts of it
elicit particular enthusiasm, or what parts elicit some disagreement. Because the FECT expanded rationale is flexible, client feedback is important to help determine the
course of therapy or the particular type of interventions
to be used. At the same time, all client reactions are
viewed as potential CRBs. For example, a female client
may say, "That's fine, whatever," in reaction to the brochures. What's going on in this case? Is this the way the
client deals with others, as well--accepting whatever is
dished out? Is she afraid to express her real reaction to
the therapist, just as she is with others? Or is this particu-

lar response not an instance of the client's daily life problems? This process of noticing potential CRBs is essential
to FECT, and is sharpened by the use of the case conceptualization form as discussed below.

Co

The focus of your therapy will d e p e n d on the

causes of your problems. Thus, along with cognitive
therapy, your treatment might also include: exploring your strengths and seeing the best of who you
are; grieving your losses, contacting your feelings,
especially those that are difficult for you to experience; developing relationship skills; developing
mindfulness, acceptance and an observing self;
gaining a sense o f mastery in your life.

217

218

K o h l e n b e r g e t al.

t h a t w o u l d i n t e r f e r e with f o r m i n g a close r e l a t i o n s h i p
with the therapist. It was in this c o n t e x t that MI: G.'s "ominous" style o f i n t e r a c t i n g was i d e n t i f i e d by t h e therapist.
This style e m e r g e d w h e n the t h e r a p i s t was o p e n a n d exp r e s s e d w a r m t h toward Mr. G.

o
ut
it
st
In

p r e s e n t s several c o r e beliefs i d e n t i f i e d by J. S. Beck

(1995), a l o n g with c o r r e s p o n d i n g CRBs that can b e anticipated from them.
Intimacy CRBs. At the b e g i n n i n g o f therapy, F E C T
therapists tell t h e i r clients that w h e n they can express
t h e i r t h o u g h t s , feelings, a n d desires in an a u t h e n t i c , caring, a n d assertive way, they will be m o r e likely to find j o y
in life a n d to be less d e p r e s s e d . T h e t h e r a p y r e l a t i o n s h i p
p r o v i d e s a u n i q u e o p p o r t u n i t y to b u i l d t h e s e skills because the therapist can offer the c l i e n t s o m e t h i n g that n o
o n e else can in the s a m e way: p e r c e p t i o n s o f w h o t h e clie n t is, ways in which the client is special, a n d ways in
w h i c h the c l i e n t impacts t h e therapist, T h r o u g h o u t therapy, e m p h a s i s is p l a c e d o n the c l i e n t b e i n g able to express w h a t is difficult for h i m o r h e r to express to the
therapist. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s given to the client at the b e g i n ning, m i d d l e , a n d e n d o f t h e r a p y (see Table 2 for s a m p l e
q u e s t i o n s ) e n c o u r a g e the c l i e n t to say w h a t is g e n e r a l l y
difficult to say, w h e t h e r they b e criticisms, fears, longings,
o r a p p r e c i a t i o n . F E C T therapists m o d e l i n t i m a c y skills
for clients by e x p r e s s i n g caring, e x p r e s s i n g feelings, telling clients what they see as t h e i r strengths, talking a b o u t
c o n c e r n s in a way that validates them, a n d m a k i n g r e q u e s t s

Corresponding cognitive concepts (cognitive CRBls: automatic thoughts, core beliefs, underlying assumptions). Mr. G.

de

h a d t h e c o r e b e l i e f that h e was defective.

Daily life goals, ME G.'s goals w e r e to b e less d e p r e s s e d
a n d to have m o r e i n t i m a c y in his relationships.
In-session goals (CRB2s). T h e s e are i m p r o v e m e n t s in
the client-therapist r e l a t i o n s h i p . Mr. G., for e x a m p l e ,
d e m o n s t r a t e d i m p r o v e m e n t by b e i n g v u l n e r a b l e w h e n
h e said, "I d o n ' t w a n t to a p p e a r o m i n o u s now," after the
t h e r a p i s t told h i m that h e c a r e d a b o u t a n d liked Mr. G.
T h e t h e r a p i s t a c k n o w l e d g e d the i m p r o v e m e n t a n d conf i r m e d that t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p h a d b e e n s t r e n g t h e n e d because o f Mr. G.'s CRB2. H y p o t h e s i z i n g in a d v a n c e o n the
case c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n f o r m a b o u t CRB2s that m i g h t occ u r h e l p s t h e t h e r a p i s t to be p r e p a r e d for t h e i r e m e r g e n c e a n d to be in a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n to n u r t u r e a n d s h a p e
t h e i m p r o v e d i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r if a n d w h e n it
does happen.

ia

c
en
Ci

tu

uc

nd

Co

al

4. N o t i c e CRBs: B o t h P r o b l e m s a n d h n p r o v e m e n t s

Table 2

Sample Beginning, Middle, and End of Therapy

Questionnaire Items*
Beginning of Therapy
I notice these similarities and differences between my usual style
of beginning and how I am beginning this relationship...
I will increase the likelihood of having a good experience and
getting what I want from therapy i f . . .

al

tu

ex

nt

Co

Based o n the case c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , F E C T therapists

h y p o t h e s i z e a b o u t a n d l o o k for specific CRBs. A few o f
the m o s t c o m m o n d o m a i n s follow.
Cognitive CRBs. I m p o r t a n t cognitive CRBs can he
i d e n t i f i e d by e x a m i n i n g the client's c o r e beliefs, w h i c h
are i d e n t i f i e d in the c o u r s e o f s t a n d a r d CT. C o r e beliefs
can be translated i n t o cognitive CRBs, a n d this will facilitate the therapist's awareness o f t h e i r p o t e n t i a l . Table 1

es

Middle of Therapy
I'm having a hard time expressing myself a b o u t . . .
I want you to know...
It would be difficult for me to f a c e . . .
I am interested in changing my therapy to include...
I could improve our relationship b y . . .
Yon could improve our relationship b y . . .
I have a hard time expressing myself a b o u t . . .
It is hard for me to tell you a b o u t . . .
What bothers me about you i s . . .

Doesn't nleasure up

* Adapted ti-om Bmcknm=Gordon, Gangi, and Wallman (1988).

as

iv

Loser (in relationships)

at

Incompetent
Ineffective
Inferior
I,oser

gr

Inadequate

te

Helpless

In

Failure

End of Therapy
For many clients, the end of therapy brings up feelings and
memories of previous transitions and losses. What thoughts
and feelings do endings in general bring up for you?
What thoughts and feelings are you having about the ending of
this therapy relationship?
What have you learned, what has been helpful for you in this
therapy?
What stands out to you most about yonr interactions with your
therapist?
What do you like and appreciate about your therapist?
What regrets do you have about the therapy or what would you
like to have gone differently?

as

Feels this way, even with therapist.

As seen by therapist.
As seen by therapist or in reactions to
therapy.
As seen by therapist.
In therapy. With therapy tasks,
homework.
In relation to therapist, can't influence
therapist.
To understand the therapy, to get better
with this treatment.
In therapy.
In therapy.
To therapist, to other clients.
In relation to therapist, as seen by
therapist, to be in therapy.
In therapy relationship.

pi

Alone
Defective
Different

ra

Anticipated CRB

Te

Core Issue

Table I

Potential Core Beliefs and Corresponding Anticipated CRBs

Enhancing Cognitive Therapy

o
ut
it
st
In

(I want, I need, I would like). FECT therapists also model

self-disclosure when it is in the client's best interest (i.e.,
when relevant to the client's issues, offering support, understanding, e n c o u r a g e m e n t , hope, a n d the sense that
the client is n o t alone).
Avoidance CRBs. From a behavioral viewpoint, avoidance is o n e of the major factors in the etiology a n d maint e n a n c e of depression (Ferster, 1973), a n d avoidance
CRBs are often a target in FECT. For many clients, therapeutic change is facilitated when avoidance is gently
blocked a n d clients are e n c o u r a g e d to take risks outside
of their usual comfort zone both in the session a n d in
daily life. For example, a client remains silent for a mom e n t a n d looks troubled in response to a question. W h e n
the therapist inquires further, the client says, "Oh, I d o n ' t
know, n o t h i n g important." This may be a CRB1. That is,
in daily life, the client may avoid talking a n d feeling
a b o u t troubling topics by using such dismissive phrases.
This type of CRB1 precludes the possibility of the client's
resolving the issue that she or he is avoiding, a n d interferes with f o r m i n g more satisfying relationships. Gentle
inquiry into " n o t h i n g important" may p r o m p t CRB2s,
which, in this case, may be the client identifying a n d expressing his or h e r feeling of discomfort to the therapist.
The therapist should take care that his or her response to
the CRB2 will naturally reinforce the new behavior. This
may involve risk-taking a n d real e m o t i o n a l involvement
o n the part of the therapist, so the therapist should also
be aware of his or her own avoidance CRBs.

219

de

ia

c
en
Ci

al

tu

uc

nd

Co

6. Increase Therapist Self-Awareness as an Aid to

Detecting and Being Aware o f CRBs
FECT therapists use their personal reactions to alert
them to client CRBs. T h e more therapists are aware of
a n d u n d e r s t a n d their own reactions to their clients, the
easier it will be for them to detect CRBs a n d r e s p o n d appropriately. For example, d u r i n g supervision co-author
Mavis Tsai noticed that in a tape of a session, when a clie n t expressed warmth a n d appreciation toward the therapist, the therapist c h a n g e d the subject without acknowledging what the client had said. Dr. Tsai also noticed that
this therapist t e n d e d to be u n c o m f o r t a b l e when Dr. Tsai
c o m p l i m e n t e d him. W h e n this was p o i n t e d out, the therapist became more aware of this discomfort a n d focused
on b e i n g more receptive a n d reinforcing when complim e n t e d . Subsequently, he was better able to detect a n d
naturally reinforce positive interpersonal behaviors of his
clients. Table 4 presents sample questions that can be
used d u r i n g supervision of FECT therapists to increase
self-awareness related to provision of FECT.

Begin filling out this record with the problematic

situation, what you did, or what you felt. If possible,
denote whether the thinking, feeling, or d o i n g
came first, second, or third (which did you experience first, second, a n d third?).

ex

nt

Co

7. Use the Modified T h o u g h t Record

We modified the thought record (A. T. Beck et al., 1979,
p. 403) used during CT in the following ways. First, the instructions were modified to include the expanded rationale: The client is asked to consider whether the A-B-C, A-C,
or A-C-B paradigms fit his or her particular experiences.

Second, a new c o l u m n , "In Vivo," has b e e n added to

the form to facilitate the therapist-client focus. After

Table 3
Useful Sample Questions to Evoke CRB

Table 4
Sample Questions for Use During Supervision of FECTTherapists
to Increase Self-Awareness

es

al

tu

5. Ask Questions to Evoke CRBs

FECT therapists ask questions that b r i n g the client's
attention to their thoughts a n d feelings at the m o m e n t
a b o u t the therapy or therapeutic relationship. Table 3
presents several useful questions of this type.

What thoughts and feelings is the client stirring up in you?

How can these reactions help/hinder the client or the therapy?
What does this tell you about the client?
What does this tell you about yourself?.
What are your own CRBls and CRB2s in relationships and
particularly as they pertain to your work with this client?
What would be helpful to the client and also promote better
therapist behavior? What do you uniquelybring to the therapy
relationship?
How do you think the waysyou've been hurt emotionally shaped
who you are (your behavior) as a therapist, both positivelyand
negatively?
In general, what do you think your strengths and weaknesses are as
a therapist?
What concerns and apprehensions do you have as you begin seeing
FECT clients?

as

pi

te

In

as

iv

at

gr

What were you thinking/feelingon your way to therapy today?

What are your behaviors that tend to bring closeness in your
relationships?
What do you tend to do that decreases closeness in your
relationships?
How would you feet about us watching for your behaviors in here
which increase or decrease closeness?
What were yon thinking/feelingwhile you were waiting for me out
in the waiting room?

ra

what I just said?

to the rationale I just gave?
to me as your therapist?
to agenda setting?
to structured therapy?
to the homework assignment?
to time-limited 20-sessiontherapy?

Te

What's your reaction t o . . .

220

Kohlenberg et al.
d e n o t i n g the thoughts, feelings, a n d actions that occ u r r e d in response to the particular event in daily life, the
client is asked, "How might similar p r o b l e m a t i c thoughts,
feelings, a n d / o r actions c o m e up in session, a b o u t the
therapy, o r between you a n d your therapist?"
Third, a new column, "Alternative, More Productive
Ways o f Acting" asks clients to come up with alternative
ways of acting that would help t h e m achieve their goals.
T h e client is also asked to rate his o r h e r " C o m m i t m e n t to
Act More Effectively" using the following scale:

o
ut
it
st
In

ticipants interviewed, 49 m e t full eligibility criteria and

were a c c e p t e d into the study. T h r e e participants d r o p p e d
before therapist assignment; 46 participants were assigned to either CT (18 clients) or FECT (28 clients) and
started therapy. Two additional clients (one CT a n d o n e
FECT) were r e m o v e d from the study after therapy began.
O n e was d u e to a therapist medical e m e r g e n c y a n d o n e
was due to the e m e r g e n c e o f a severe personality d i s o r d e r
missed d u r i n g screening. Participants' m e a n age was
41.69 + 9.61; 64% were female, 38.5% were m a r r i e d o r
living with s o m e o n e , a n d 46% had g r a d u a t e d from a
4-year college.

de

c
en
Ci

0% N o n e (I can't act b e t t e r while I have negative thoughts a n d / o r feelings).

50% I am willing to give it a try.
100% Very much. I will act effectively a n d have my
negative thoughts a n d feelings at the same
time.

ia

Therapists
O u r research therapists h a d b e e n in practice for at
least 10 years a n d h a d served as cognitive therapy research therapists on p r i o r clinical trials. T h r e e therapists
were psychologists; o n e was a social worker. Two therapists were b o a r d certified by the A c a d e m y o f Cognitive
Therapy.

Based on acceptance (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999;

Linehan, 1993) a n d behavioral activation (Jacobson et al.,
1996; Martell, Addis, & J a c o b s o n , 2001) approaches, this
c o l u m n can be used to raise the issue that it is possible
to i m p r o v e even if o n e has negative thoughts a n d feelings. This a p p r o a c h is particularly usefifl for h e l p i n g clients who d o n o t i m p r o v e with s t a n d a r d cognitive the>
apy i n t e r v e n t i o n s o r for those who reject the cognitive
hypothesis.
These seven specific techniques i n c o r p o r a t i n g two
m a i n e n h a n c e m e n t s to CT were tested in the course of a
3-year study.

nd

Co

al

tu

uc

Procedure

es

as

pi

ra

Te

te

In

Measures
We wanted to measure several different classes o f variables in this study. First, we wanted o u r study to be comparable to t r a d i t i o n a l o u t c o m e studies o n t r e a t m e n t for
depression, so traditional o u t c o m e measures were used
(e.g., Elkin et al., 1989). We used (a) the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD; Hamilton, 1967);
(b) the Global Assessment of F u n c t i o n i n g Scale ~GAF;

as

iv

at

gr

Clients
Eligibility criteria were a diagnosis of major depressive
d i s o r d e r a c c o r d i n g to the Structured Clinical Interview
for DSM-IV (SCID; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams,
1995) a n d a score of 18 o r greater on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, &
E r b a u g h , 1961). E x c l u s i o n c r i t e r i a were t h e s a m e as
J a c o b s o n et al. (1996).
Participants were recruited t h r o u g h c o m m u n i t y clinic
referrals a n d newspaper advertisements. After an initial
p h o n e screening, participants were given a full diagnostic
evaluation to d e t e r m i n e study eligibility. O f the 116 par-

al

Method

tu

Depressed subjects were sequentially assigned, in

waves, to each o f four e x p e r i e n c e d cognitive therapists.
D u r i n g the first 6 m o n t h s of the study, 18 subjects were assigned to CT a n d received standard CT tor depression. In
the 7th m o n t h , FECT began a n d the next 28 subjects
were sequentially assigned in waves to the same f o u r
therapists.

ex

nt

Co

Empirical Findings

Standard CTphase. Each therapist was instructed to do

20-session CT for depression, using A. T. Beck a n d colleagues (1979) a n d J. S. Beck (1995) as manuals. T h e
therapists m e t for weekly g r o u p supervision meetings. DI.
S a n d r a Coffman, an e x p e r i e n c e d cognitive therapist who
served as a research therapist on two p r i o r clinical trials,
a t t e n d e d a b o u t 50% o f the g r o u p meetings d u r i n g the
CT phase a n d provided individual CT supervision. Additionally; Dr. Keith Dobson rated foul" sessions from each
therapy case for c o m p e t e n c y on the Cognitive T h e r a p y
Scale (Dobson, Shaw, & Vallis, 1985; Vallis, Shaw, & Dobson, 1986) a n d o n g o i n g f e e d b a c k based on these ratings
was proxdded to the therapists.
PECT phase. T h e same four therapists began FECT
t r e a t m e n t d u r i n g the second year o f the study. Training
in FECT consisted of a 6-hour workshop a n d weekly
g r o u p a n d individual supervision from Dr. K o h l e n b e r g or
Dr. Tsai. T h e t r e a t m e n t manuals for this phase consisted
of the two CT books (A. T. Beck et al., 1979; J. S. Beck,
1995), the FAP b o o k (R.J. K o h l e n b e r g & Tsai, 1991), and
s u p p l e m e n t a l FECT materials, such as the questions in
Tables 1 t h r o u g h 4 a n d forms c o m m o n l y used in CT that
were modified to be consistent with FECT.

222

Kohlenberg et al.
Table 5

u r e s as t h o s e w i t h less t h a n a 25% r e d u c t i o n

Mean Scores on Major Outcome Variables by Condition, p Values and Effect Sizes

in s y m p t o m s . F i g u r e 3 s h o w s t h e p e r c e n t a g e

o
ut
it
st
In
BDI

HRSD

21.65 +- 5.36
8.61 -+ 5.45
7.83 -+ 4.76

.20
.30

.28
.17

o f t r e a t m e n t as H R S D 6 o r less, F E C T pad e n t s s h o w e d a n i n c r e m e n t a l i n c r e a s e in re-

23
23
23

14.65 -+ 3.75
5.52 -+ 4.54
4.04 -+ 3.69

.O6
.40

.53
.08

F E C T p a t i e n t s r e m i t t e d c o m p a r e d to 46.7%
( 8 / 1 5 ) o f C T clients (X2 = 4.03, p = .049).

0.92 -+ 0.42
0.54 -+ 0.42
0.66 + 0.37

23
18b
17a

0.89 +- 0.35
0.35 -4- 0.20
0.46 + 0.43

.06
.10

.61
.48

D i f f e r e n c e s in r e m i s s i o n rates d e f i n e d as
BDI 8 o r less w e r e n o t statistically s i g n i f i c a n t
b e t w e e n c o n d i t i o n s . It is n o t c l e a r as to why

54.67 +- 5.23
70.27 +- 15.52
78.87 +- 11.42

23
23
23

55.09 -+ 7.82
73.13 +- 13.79
85.39 +- 9.52

.29
.03

.19
.65

M + SD

Pre
Post
Follow-up

15
15
15

21.67 +- 8.09
10.67 +- 10.03
8.87 + 7.43

23
23
23

Pre
Post
Follow-up

15
15
15

14.93 +- 4.06
8.60 + 7.12
4.47 + 4.24

Pre
Post
Follow-up

15
11a
13c

Pre
Post
Follow-up

15
15
15

M +- SD

Remission. D e f i n i n g r e m i s s i o n at t h e e n d

m i s s i o n o f 67%. E i g h t e e n o f 23 (78.3%)

reliable d i f f e r e n c e s in r e m i s s i o n w e r e f o u n d
only with t h e H R S D c r i t e r i o n .
Relapse analyses. S i n c e we o n l y h a d a 3-

m o n t h f o l l o w - u p a s s e s s m e n t , o u r analyses o f
r e l a p s e w e r e b a s e d o n this l i m i t a t i o n . We
l o o k e d at s u s t a i n e d remission r a t e s (SR; H o l -

ia

c
en
Ci

GAF

ES

FECT

Time

de

SCL-90

o f f a i l u r e s in C T a n d F E C T f o r e a c h outc o m e m e a s u r e . F E C T h a d f e w e r failures t h a n
d i d CT o n all m e a s u r e s .

CT

nd

Co

Note. p = p value for between condition ANCOVA; ES = Effect size; BDI = Beck Depression
Inventory; HRSD = 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression; SCL-90 = Symptom
Check-List 90, total score; GAF = Global Assessment of Functioning.
aFour CT clients did not return their post-treatment assessment packets (which included the
SCL-90 and SAD).
b Five FECT clients did not return their post-treatment assessment packets (which included
the SCL-90 and SAD).
c Two CT clients did not return their 3-month follow-up assessment packets (which included
the SCL-90 and SAD).
~Five FECT clients did not return their 3-month follow-up assessment packets (which included
the SCL-90 and SAD), and one client did not return the SCL-90 with the follow-up assessment
packet.

uc

Ion, 2001) at t h e 3 - m o n t h follow-up. A c l i e n t

was in SR i f h e / s h e was r a n d o m i z e d to treat-

al

tu

m e n t , d i d n o t d r o p o u t at any p o i n t i n t h e
study, was n o t clinically d e p r e s s e d at t h e e n d
o f a c u t e t r e a t m e n t ( H R S D < 13), a n d remained

the

i n t e r v i e w ) . T h i s i n d e x is a n i m p r o v e m e n t
o v e r s i m p l e r e l a p s e r a t e s f o r two r e a s o n s . First, it i n c l u d e s
all clients r a n d o m i z e d to t r e a t m e n t a n d t h u s is a n i n t e n t -

tu

ex

nt

Co

h a d m o r e r e s p o n d e r s t h a n d i d CT o n all m e a s u r e s . Avera g i n g t h e BDI a n d H R S D , 79% o f F E C T c l i e n t s a n d 60%

o f C T c l i e n t s r e s p o n d e d to t r e a t m e n t . We d e f i n e d fail-

depression-free throughout

follow-up p e r i o d (did n o t m e e t criteria for

d e p r e s s i o n f o r 2 w e e k s a c c o r d i n g to t h e LIFE

t o - t r e a t analysis, w h i c h is m o r e inclusive a n d p o w e r f u l .

50
[] CT
4O

Te

70

ra

8O

es

al

90

= 30

pi

Ii
z

~ 6o

as

8 20
L-

U 50

HRSD

SCL90-T

GAF

HRSD

SCL90-T

Outcome measure

GAF

Figure 3. Percent of CT and FECT failures on major o u t c o m e

variables. BDI = Beck Depression Inventory; HRSD = 17-item
Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression; SCL-90T = S y m p t o m
Check-List, 90 Item Version, total score; GAF = Global Assessment of Functioning.

as

iv

Figure 2. Percent of CT and FECT responders on major o u t c o m e

variables. BDI = Beck Depression Inventory; HRSD = 17-item
H a m i l t o n Rating Scale for D e p r e s s i o n ; SCL-90T = S y m p t o m
Check-List, 90 Item Version, total score; GAF = Global Assessment o f Functioning.

BDI

at

Outcome measure

gr

-BDI

te

30

In

10

40

Enhancing Cognitive Therapy

o
ut
it
st
In

Endicott, Spitzer, Fleiss, & Cohen, 1976); (c) the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; A. T. Beck et al., 1961); a n d (d)
the Symptom Checklist-90 Total Score (SCL-90; Derogatis, Lipman, & Covey, 1973). These four measures are established instruments for the m e a s u r e m e n t of depressive
symptoms (BDI a n d HRSD), overall symptoms (SCL-90
T), a n d general level of f u n c t i o n i n g (GAF). All measures
were administered at pretreatment, posttreatment, a n d at
a 3-month fbllow-up. The HRSD a n d GAF were completed by a trained evaluator at p r e t r e a t m e n t a n d followup a n d by the therapist d u r i n g the final session. Also, to
assess diagnostic status a n d relapse rates at the 3-month
follow-up, we a d m i n i s t e r e d the L o n g i t u d i n a l Interval
Follow-up Evaluation (LIFE; Keller et al., 1987), a semistructured retrospective interwiew that assesses the longitudinal course of depression a n d other disorders.
Second, we were interested specifically in the effects of
the FECT enhancement-s that emphasize interpersonal
problems a n d improvements, so we included several measures of interpersonal functioning. We administered the
Social Support Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (SSQ; Sarason, Levine,
Basham, & Sarason, 1983), a well-validated measure that
asks subjects to list up to n i n e individuals to whom subjects feel they could turn for support in each of six different situations a n d to rate their satisfaction with available
support for each situation on a 6-point Likert scale. The
m e a n n u m b e r of individuals a n d m e a n satisfaction ratings across the six situations are used as subscale scores.
We also administered the Social Avoidance and Distress
Scale (SAD; Watson & Friend, 1969). Although the SAD
is widely used in t r e a t m e n t research on social phobia, we
believe it has relevance to depression in general a n d to
FECT treatment of depression in particular. This is because a behavioral view of depression specifically emphasizes a lack or avoidance of social reinforcers (Boiling,
Kohlenberg, & Parker, 2000; Lewinsohn, 1974), a n d overc o m i n g social avoidance is targeted in both FECT a n d
Behavioral Activation treatments for depression.
We also wanted a measure of relationship satisfaction
that tracked progress weekly t h r o u g h o u t therapy. Before
b e g i n n i n g each therapy session, clients responded to two
questions (in a confidential, sealed questionnaire that
the therapist did n o t see) a b o u t their interpersonal relating d u r i n g the previous week. The first question was,
"Have your relationships b e e n different than usual?" Clients were asked to respond to this question on a 5-point
scale (1 = much worse, 3 = no change, a n d 5 = much better).
T h e second question was, "If your relationships are different this week, is this difference due to therapy?" Clients
were asked to respond o n a 4-point scale (1 = due to other
factors, 4 = definitely due to therapy).
We also c o n d u c t e d several intensive videotape rating
projects to assess additional client reactions a n d changes
not assessed by existing measures. First, we were inter-

221

de

ia

c
en
Ci

ested in evaluating the effect of the FECT e n h a n c e m e n t

to the CT rationale. Second, we assessed additional relationship improvements using information gleaned from
the diagnostic interviews before the study started a n d at
3-month follow-up. Third, we assessed statements made
by clients themselves d u r i n g the final therapy session
using a new scale, created through a c o n t e n t analysis procedure, to assess for patterns of improvements from the
clients' perspectives. Finally, in order to measure therapist a d h e r e n c e and competence, we created a n d administered a measure to check that the therapists were able to
i m p l e m e n t FECT a n d that FECT as i m p l e m e n t e d differed from standard CT. We assessed CT competency
using the Cognitive Therapy Scale (CTS; Dobson et al.,
1985; Vallis et al., 1986). Each of these projects will be described more fully below.

Results

al

tu

uc

nd

Co

nt

Co

Because this study was not a randomized clinical trial,

it is n o t possible to u n a m b i g u o u s l y attribute outcome differences to the t r e a t m e n t conditions. Thus, o u r conclusions about outcome are preliminary in nature. Despite
the n u m e r o u s analyses conducted, we elected to retain
an u n c o r r e c t e d p v a l u e of .05 a n d risk Type I errors because of the p r e l i m i n a r y a n d e x p l o r a t o r y n a t u r e of
this study.

Major Outcomes

es

al

tu

ex

Statistical significance. We first tested for statistical significance of m e a n differences between t r e a t m e n t conditions on the four major outcome measures using ANCOVA,
with pretreatment scores on each measure entered as covariates. Table 5 shows sample sizes, means a n d standard
deviations for CT a n d FECT on the four measures at pretreatment, posttreatment, a n d follow-up. Table 5 also
shows the p value ( o n e - t a i l e d ) for each ANCOVA comparing CT a n d FECT. Results favored FECT at all time
points, with a significant difference f o u n d o n the GAF at
follow-up, and trends f o u n d on the HRSD a n d SCL-90 at
posttreatment.
Effect sizes. Because of small sample size, we were particularly interested in effect sizes as measured by d, a n d
used adjusted values as instructed by C o h e n (1988, p.
380). Across all measures (see Table 5), the m e a n posttreatment effect size was .40, a n d the m e a n follow-up effect size was .34.
Clinical significance. W e also split our clients into
groups of "responders" a n d "failures." We defined responders as those with a clinically significant reduction in
depressive symptoms, defined as greater than or equal to
50% reduction in overall symptom severity measured at
pretreatment. Figure 2 shows the percentage of responders in CT a n d FECT for each outcome measure. FECT

as

pi

ra

Te

te

In

as

iv

at

gr

Enhancing Cognitive Therapy

S e c o n d , it takes i n t o a c c o u n t b o t h those w h o did n o t res p o n d to a c u t e t r e a t m e n t a n d those w h o r e l a p s e d after a
r e s p o n s e ; thus it m o r e fully c a p t u r e s the r a n g e o f depression t r e a t m e n t o u t c o m e s possible. We f o u n d that 47.1%
o f C T clients a n d 74.1% o f F E C T clients w e r e in SR at
follow-up (X2 = 1.29, p = .068). T h i s i n d e x s u b s u m e s simple relapse rat#s: O n e C T client a n d o n e F E C T client h a d
relapsed.

223

A
CT

o
ut
it
st
In

- - FECT

,,..

03

e-

.I
"---,,,

"~

~ ./.~
i'~
/~"
\ / J
v

Interpersonal Functioning Outcomes

de

~ k i

c
en
Ci

O n t h e SSO~ n o significant d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n c o n d i tions w e r e f o u n d in t h e n u m b e r o f social s u p p o r t s clients

identified, a l t h o u g h results f a v o r e d F E C T with small effect sizes at p o s t t r e a t m e n t (.29) a n d follow-up (.27).
However, significant d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e f o u n d in relationship satisfaction with large effect sizes at p o s t t r e a t m e n t ,
F ( 1 , 26) - 5.57, p = 0.03, E S = .91, a n d f o l l o w - u p ,
F(1, 28) = 7.45, p = 0.01, E S = .99 (see Table 6). C T clients o n a v e r a g e d i d n o t i m p r o v e o n r e l a t i o n s h i p satisfaction at p o s t t r e a t m e n t ( p e r c e n t c h a n g e = 0.00 --- 0.38) o r
follow-up ( - 0 . 0 3 + 0.22), while F E C T clients i m p r o v e d
47% at p o s t t r e a t m e n t a n d 39% by follow-up. D i f f e r e n c e s
in p e r c e n t c h a n g e scores b e t w e e n c o n d i t i o n s w e r e signifi c a n t ( p o s t t r e a t m e n t : t[27] = 1.69, p = .050; follow-up
t[29] = 1.84, p = .038).
O n t h e SAD, n o significant d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e f o u n d in
social a v o i d a n c e b e t w e e n g r o u p s u s i n g A N C O V A at postt r e a t m e n t o r at follow-up, b u t m o d e r a t e effect sizes w e r e
f o u n d at b o t h t i m e p o i n t s f a v o r i n g F E C T ( p o s t t r e a t m e n t
d = .38; follow-up d = .36 ). P e r c e n t c h a n g e scores indic a t e d a w o r s e n i n g o f social anxiety o v e r t h e c o u r s e o f
t h e r a p y f o r CT, while t h e F E C T a v e r a g e i n d i c a t e d an imp r o v e m e n t (CT = - 0 . 2 9 + 1.08; F E C T = 0.36 --- 0.43;
t[27] = 2.27, p = .016). Similar d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e f o u n d at
follow-up (CT = 0.09 _+ 0.63; F E C T = 0.39 + 0.43;
t[29] = 1.59, p = .062).
C o n c e r n i n g weekly r e l a t i o n s h i p satisfaction, as s h o w n
in F i g u r e 4(a), b o t h C T a n d F E C T clients consistently rep o r t e d t h a t t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w e r e i m p r o v i n g as t h e r a p y
p r o g r e s s e d . As s h o w n in F i g u r e 4(b), b o t h g r o u p s attribu t e d this i m p r o v e m e n t increasingly to therapy, with F E C T

i i

L i

i 4 r i
5

i q i

i J i
9

i i

~ i

i I

i J i

I q k i

I q

1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9

20

Session

ia

~CT

Co

--FECT

/,,.

//

t
/

\v/\\

t\x

033

nd

t-.m

j#\// ~

al

tu

uc

to3
o)

Co

i
2

J
3

i
4

i
6

q i

; n q

1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0

Session

ex

nt

Figure 4. Mean self-reported relationship improvements and

tu

es

al

attributions for change over the course of therapy. (A) Mean ratings on question: Have your relationships been different than
usual? 1 = m u c h worse, 3 = n o change, and 5 = m u c h better.
(B) Mean ratings on question: If your relationships are different
this week, is this difference due to therapy? 1 = due to o t h e r
factors, and 4 = definitely due to therapy.

Te

as

pi

ra

s h o w i n g m o r e i m p r o v e m e n t t h a n C T at all b u t t h r e e t i m e
points.
Interpersonal f u n c t i o n i n g a n d treatment failures. We also
l o o k e d specifically at h o w the t r e a t m e n t failures (those
with less t h a n 25% c h a n g e o n the BDI) d i d o n these m e a sures. Since F E C T f o c u s e d o n b u i l d i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l relating skills (in a d d i t i o n to u s i n g C T i n t e r v e n t i o n s ) , it was
possible t h a t t h e r e m i g h t h a v e b e e n i m p r o v e m e n t s in relationships t h a t p r e c e d e d c h a n g e s in d e p r e s s i o n scores.
T h e s e p a t i e n t s w o u l d have b e e n classified as failures o n
t h e BDI b u t w o u l d d i f f e r f r o m C T f a i l u r e s in t h a t n e w
i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i n g skills w e r e l e a r n e d .
O u r d a t a s u p p o r t e d this possibility. At posttest, t h e
F E C T failure for w h o m we h a d d a t a ( o n e F E C T failure
a n d o n e C T failure d i d n o t r e t u r n t h e i r p o s t t r e a t m e n t assessments) d i d n o t fail o n t h e S S Q o r SAD, b u t t h e C T

M +- SD

ES

Pre
Post
Follow-up

15
11
13

4.02 -+ 1.48
4.08 - 1.61
4.05 -+ 1.66

23
18
18

4.04 +- 1.42
4.69 -+ 0.92
4.76 _+ 1.24

.97
.01
.01

.91
.99

p = p value for between-conditions ANCOVA, ES = Effect size.

as

M +- SD

iv

at

gr

FECT

Time

Note.

te

CT

In

Table 6
SSQ Relationship Satisfaction Subscale Scores by Condition,
p Values, and Effect Sizes

Kohlenberg et al.

224

failures did. O n the SSQ, the CT failures' percent change

scores (pre to post) averaged .08 with only one above .00,
while the FECT failure's p e r c e n t change score was 1.00.
O n the SAD, the CT failures' percent change scores (pre
to post) averaged - . 4 4 with n o n e above .04, while the
FECT failure's percent change score was .40. The same
was f o u n d at follow-up (all seven failures r e t u r n e d their
follow-up assessments). O n the SSQ, the CT failures' percent change scores averaged - . 1 0 , while the FECT failure's percent change scores averaged .29. O n the SAD, the
CT failures' percent change scores averaged - . 0 7 , while
the FECT failure's percent change scores averaged .29.
FECT failures also consistently reported that their relationships were d o i n g better as therapy progressed (Figure 5a), a n d they a t t r i b u t e d this i m p r o v e m e n t increasingly to therapy (Figure 5b). CT failures did not

o
ut
it
st
In

consistently report improved

attribute any improvements
Given the very small n u m b e r
results are merely suggestive
with caution.

Reaction to Rationale

de

ia

c
en
Ci

/
,'

-~

'

e.--

/--'~
~

I
',

'l / -J

./

.,l

~/ ~

I',k

tu

uc

nd

~CT
-- - F E C T

Co

~3
C

al

: ;,,

~, i I , ,

: !

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

/ ~
/ ~

F'",
/ - - "k\

,/A

/ \

as

pi

ra

t--

Te

~3

I \

/
/

es

i~

~CT
--FECT

al

tu

Session

O n e of the two major e n h a n c e m e n t s to CT in FECT is

an e x p a n d e d rationale. At the e n d of Session 1, therapists
were e n c o u r a g e d to distribute the appropriate brochures
(Beck a n d Greenberg's 1995 Coping With Depression for
the CT condition a n d Coping With Depression a n d a FECT
b r o c h u r e for the FFCT condition), a n d to discuss them
with the client in Session 2. O u r hypothesis was that the
e x p a n d e d FECT rationale would improve the match between client a n d therapy a n d clients would r e s p o n d more
favorably to the e x p a n d e d rationale than to the standard
CT rationale.
O u r Reaction to Rationale scale (RTR) was modified
from Addis's Reaction to Rationale Scale (unpublished)
a n d consists of 7 items scored o n a 5-point scale of - 2
(strongly negative) to + 2 (strongly positive). Two items on
that scale allowed for comparisons between the FECT
a n d CT conditions: overall response to the rationale a n d
response to the cognitive conceptualization. Two research assistants assessed clients' reactions to rationales
by rating clients' responses in Session 2 using the RTR. It
was impossible to m a i n t a i n blindness to t r e a t m e n t condition because the rationales identify the condition. We included treatment completers (CT = 15, FFCT = 23) a n d
dropouts who completed Session 2 (CT = 1, FECT = 3)
in this analysis. In four cases (3 CT, 1 FECT) there was n o
discussion of the rationale in Session 2, leaving 13 CT clients a n d 25 FECT clients. Looking at overall response to
the respective rationales, FECT clients displayed a significantly more positive overall response than did CT clients: CT M = .15, SD = .80; FECT M = .88, SD = .73;
t(36) = 2.83, p < .01. Also, clients displayed a significantly more positive reaction to the CT conceptualization
in FECT when it was presented as part of the e x p a n d e d
rationale than did clients in CT when it was presented in
isolation: CT M = .08, SD = .64; FECT M = .83, SD = .65;
t(33) = 3.41, p < .01. (Two additional FECT clients displayed n o specific reaction to the CT conceptualization
a n d were n o t i n c l u d e d in this analysis.)

ex

i,,,
2

nt

Co

; ,
1

relationships, n o r did they

that did occur to therapy.
of treatment failures, these
a n d should be i n t e r p r e t e d

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Treatment failures' (CT = 5, FECT = 2) m e a n self-

as

iv

nitely due to therapy.

D u r i n g the SCID interview at p r e t r e a t m e n t a n d the

LIFE interview at follow-up, the interviewer took notes
about all aspects of clients' lives. To create an additional
measure of changes in interpersonal f i m c t i o n i n g from
p r e t r e a t l n e n t to follow-up, we isolated the notes a b o u t clients' relationships, a n d had two advanced u n d e r g r a d u a t e
research assistants rate the degree of i m p r o v e m e n t from

at

reported relationship i m p r o v e m e n t s and attributions for change

o v e r the course o f therapy. (A) M e a n ratings on question: Have
y o u r relationships been different than usual? ! = m u c h worse,
3 = no change, and 5 = m u c h better. (B) M e a n ratings on question: If y o u r relationships are different this w e e k , is this difference due t o t h e r a p y ? ! = d u e to o t h e r factors, and 4 = defi-

Relationship Improvements From the SCID to the LIFE

gr

Figure 5.

te

Session

In

Enhancing Cognitive

o
ut
it
st
In

the SCID to the LIFE. Raters were b l i n d to t r e a t m e n t condition a n d to o t h e r client outcomes. A 7-point scale with
verbal anchors (ranging from 1 = much worse, 4 = no
change in relationships, to 7 = much improved) was used. To
evaluate i n t e r r a t e r reliability, each rater i n d e p e n d e n t l y
scored three clients that the o t h e r rater h a d i n d e p e n dently scored, with 100% a g r e e m e n t .
Because the range o f scores was restricted (no client
was r a t e d as 1, 2, o r 7, a n d only 1 client was rated 3), ratings were t h e n categorized as either "improved" (scores
o f 5 o r 6) or "no c h a n g e or n o t improved" (scores o f 3 o r
4). Results indicate that relationships i m p r o v e d significantly m o r e frequently for FECT (85%, 17/20) clients
than for CT (53%, 8 / 1 5 ) clients, X2 = 4.21, p = .047.

de

c
en
Ci

Clients' Statements of Improvement

225

Adherence and Competence Measurement and Results

A d h e r e n c e m e a s u r e m e n t is a central feature of treatm e n t d e v e l o p m e n t . F o r FECT, t h e r e were two basic questions to answer. First, d i d o u r therapists d o FECT? Second, is FECT truly different from s t a n d a r d CT? We
d e v e l o p e d the T h e r a p i s t In Session Strategies Scale
(THISS) a d h e r e n c e measure to answer these questions.
T h e m e t h o d a n d structure o f the THISS was a d a p t e d
from the Collaborative Study Psychotherapy Rating
Scale-Version 6 (CSPRS-6; H o l l o n et al., 1987), a n d the
Vanderbilt T h e r a p i s t Strategy Scale (VTSS; Butler, Henry,
& Strupp, 1992). T h e 36 THISS items were divided into
four rational c o n t e n t subscales: CT, In Vivo CT, FAP, a n d
I n t e r p e r s o n a l T h e r a p y (IPT). For the In Vivo CT subscale, items were m o d i f i e d to specify a focus o n in vivo
material. For example, item 60 from the CSPRS-6,

ia

E x p l o r i n g underlying assumptions: Therapist explores with the client a g e n e r a l belief that u n d e r l i e s

many o f the client's specific automatic negative
thoughts,

uc

nd

Co

was m o d i f i e d into two separate items:

al

tu

E x p l o r i n g daily life assumptions: T h e r a p i s t explores with the client a g e n e r a l belief that underlies
many of the client's specific automatic negative
thoughts in daily life.

ex

nt

Co

E x p l o r i n g in-vivo u n d e r l y i n g assumptions: Therapist explores with the client a g e n e r a l belief that

u n d e r l i e s many of the client's specific in-session
automatic negative thoughts.

tu

T h e FAP subscale i n c l u d e d 6 items m e a s u r i n g general

in vivo interventions specific to FAP, such as c o m m e n t i n g
on some aspect o f the client's in vivo behavior, disclosing
his or h e r own thoughts o r feelings a b o u t the client's in
vivo behavior, a n d providing an e x p a n d e d rationale for
t r e a t m e n t that allows for additional reasons for depression o t h e r than the client's cognitions. T h e FAP subscale
was distinguished from the In Vivo CT subscale because
no FAP subscale items m e a s u r e d cognitive therapy
interventions.
R a t i n g procedures. Sessions 4, 8, 12, a n d 16 were r a t e d
by trained u n d e r g r a d u a t e s for the 38 clients who comp l e t e d the study. Raters h a d to m e e t a reliability criterion
of at least .7 for three consecutive ratings c o m p a r e d to
data raters before b e i n g used as data raters (calculated
using the intraclass correlation coefficient for generalizing to o t h e r trained raters; ICC[2,k]) (Armstrong, 1981;
Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Reliability o f data raters comp a r e d to the e x p e r t criterion ratings was f o u n d to be high
( m e a n ICC = .88, range = .75 to .96). T h e internal consistency o f the scale was c~ = .64 with subscale values o f
.79, .74, .58, and .60, respectively, for FAP, In Vivo CT, CT,
a n d IPT.

es

al

as

pi

ra

Te

te

In

as

iv

at

gr

We also assessed clients' statements o f i m p r o v e m e n t

d u r i n g the 20th session o f treatment. O u r hypothesis was
that clients' statements o f i m p r o v e m e n t would favor
FECT and reflect the increased focus on the client-therapist
relationship in FECT. A c o n t e n t analysis o f Session 20 dialogue yielded 27 exhaustive a n d mutually exclusive categories. For example, o n e category was " b e c o m i n g aware
o f feelings," d e f i n e d as a r e p o r t that expressing o r being
aware o f their feelings has b e e n useful o r helpful to the
client in some way. Two categories dealt with cognitive
change, for example, "cognitive strategies," defined as a
r e p o r t that the client b a d b e e n h e l p e d by using a cognitive strategy (such as using t h o u g h t logs or thinking up alternative ways to view a situation). Two categories dealt
specifically with relationships, for example, "attitude a n d
behavior toward others," d e f i n e d as a r e p o r t o f a positive
change in the client's attitude o r behavior with respect to
o t h e r people. For 19 o f the 27 categories, raters also were
asked to distinguish w h e t h e r the particular i m p r o v e m e n t
was attributed specifically to the therapist (e.g., "You
showed m e . . . " ) or n o t (e.g., "I f o u n d o u t . . . " ) . Two undergraduate research assistants, blind to condition, rated
the tapes. Twenty-five p e r c e n t o f the tapes were rated by
the graduate research assistants who developed the measure as criterion ratings for a reliability check on the raters.
Results i n d i c a t e d that subjects in the FECT c o n d i t i o n
identified m o r e i m p r o v e m e n t s overall ( m e a n n u m b e r o f
statement categories identified): CT = 4.47, SD = 2.36,
FECT = 8.04, SD = 3.27, t(36) = 3.66, p < .01. Furthermore, subjects in the FECT c o n d i t i o n attributed improvements m o r e often to the therapist: CT M = 0.53, SD =
0.74, FECT M = 3.26, SD = 1.94, t(equal variances n o t assumed, 30) = 6.10, p < .01. In addition, there were no
significant differences between FECT a n d CT subjects in
the identification o f cognitive strategies as helpful, b u t
FECT subjects also specified m o r e relationship improvements, CT M = 0.73, SD = 0.70, FECT M = 1.17, SD -=
0.78, t(36) = 1.77, p = .04.

Therapy

Z:Z6

Kohlenberg et al.

....

CT Waves

FEC T Waves

o
ut
it
st
In

--

0
o
CO

42

CT-IV

~2.5

A
/\!

--

CT-DL

i
\

J
t

Summary of adherence and competence. THISS ratings

showed that FAP subscale scores were elevated d u r i n g
FECT. Interestingly, in vivo CT i n t e r v e n t i o n s were infreq u e n t overall, a l t h o u g h m o r e likely to occur d u r i n g
FECT by wave 10. CT subscale scores were similar in
both t r e a t m e n t conditions. These data indicate that the
standard CT d o n e by o u r therapists in the initial phase
of o u r project employed n o focus o n the in vivo aspect of
therapy. Further, these same therapists did use in vivo
strategies d u r i n g FECT. In addition, c o m p e t e n c y ratings
suggest that therapists were p e r f o r m i n g c o m p e t e n t CT
t h r o u g h o u t the study, which was expected given their
collective experience a n d training. These results, however, must be i n t e r p r e t e d with caution. Although the
particular cognitive therapists in o u r study did not use in
vivo strategies d u r i n g CT, other cognitive therapists
might. Further, given o u r A-B design, there are n u m e r ous other variables that could have c o n t r i b u t e d to these
findings. For example, because the CT clients were seen
first, it is possible the therapists were simply a d a p t i n g to
o u r study procedures a n d that the increase in in-vivo
work d u r i n g FECT simply reflects h a b i t u a t i o n or a n
acclimatization effect.

FAP

\:

/
\

!~

~ /

""

""
IJ

~1.5

de
c
en
Ci

5
6
Wave

10

Figure 6. Mean THISS subscale scores by wave. Waves 1-4 are

ia

CT waves, 5 - 1 0 are FECTwaves. FAP = FAP subscale; CT-tV =

In Vivo CT subscale; CT-DL = Daily life CT subscale.

Co

tu

uc

nd

al

Relationship Between Adherence and Outcome

ex

nt

Co

To assess the relationship between THISS subscale

scores a n d outcome, five regression equations were evaluated, each with BDI posttest scores as the d e p e n d e n t
variable. Two-tailed significance tests were used because
specific predictions were n o t made a b o u t each subscale.
First, BDI pretest scores were e n t e r e d o n the first step,
a n d all four THISS subscales were e n t e r e d simuhaneously on the second step. This equation showed that
BDI pretest scores accounted for 10% of the variance a n d
the subscales accounted for an additional 14%. T h e n ,
four additional equations were evaluated to estimate the
u n i q u e c o n t r i b u t i o n of each subscale score, after acc o u n t i n g for the c o n t r i b u t i o n of BDI pretest scores a n d
other subscale scores (Shaw et al., 1999). Each regression
equation added BDI pretest scores o n the first step, three
of the four THISS subscale scores o n the second step,
a n d the r e m a i n i n g THISS subscale score on the last step.
Table 7 shows the results of these four regression equations: the p e r c e n t of u n i q u e variance explained by each
subscale when added last (R 2 change), the/=test evaluating whether the u n i q u e variance explained by that subscale is a significant change from that explained by the
other subscales, a n d the p value for that test. Table 7
shows that the In Vivo subscale u n i q u e l y accounted for
most of the variance explained by the subscales (R 9
change = .10), a n d the other subscales had negligible
contributions. The In Vivo subscale's u n i q u e contribution was significant, F f o r R 2 change (1, 32) = 4.26, p =
.047, and no other subscales were significant contributors.

es

al

tu

as

pi

ra

Te

te

In

as

iv

at

gr

Results. Four mixed b e t w e e n / w i t h i n subjects ANOVAs

were c o m p u t e d with each subscale score as the depend e n t measure, condition as a between-subjects factor, a n d
session as a within-subjects factor. Only FAP subscale
scores were significantly different between conditions,
F(1, 36) = 19.15, p < .01, with significantly higher scores
in the FECT condition (M = 1.57, SD = .35) than in the
CT condition (M = 1.15, SD = .16).
O u r a d h e r e n c e data also is informative regarding
therapist training issues. Figure 6 presents THISS subscale scores for each wave of the study (IPT subscale
scores are n o t shown because n o differences were f o u n d
a n d n o training issues are relevant to it). As can be seen,
In Vivo CT subscale scores were low t h r o u g h o u t the
study, although d u r i n g the final wave therapists were able
to incorporate in vivo CT into therapy. FAP subscale
scores show a marked increase at the wave-5 transition
from CT to FECT, r e m a i n elevated t h r o u g h o u t the FECT
waves, a n d show a second j u m p d u r i n g the final wave. CT
subscale scores show a marked drop at the wave-5 transition from CT to FECT as therapists focused on implem e n t i n g unfamiliar techniques, b u t CT scores regain
their former elevations by waves 9 a n d 10.
CT competency. Fifty-two (24 CT a n d 28 FECT) tapes
were rated for CT competency by Dr. Keith Dobson using
the Cognitive Therapy Scale (CTS). Sessions 4 a n d 12
were targeted for rating, and 30 of the 38 clients had at
least one session rated. There were n o significant differences in CTS total scores between therapists or between
conditions, n o r was there a significant Therapist Condition interaction. T h e m e a n CTS total score was 43.58,
SD = 6.00, which is considered adequate a n d comparable
to other studies. For comparison, Shaw (1984) proposed a
competency cutoff score of 39, and the m e a n CTS total
score of CT therapists in the TDCRP was 41.28, SD = 4.24.

Enhancing Cognitive Therapy

Table 7

o
ut
it
st
In

Results of Regression Equations With THISS Subscales as

Predictors and BDI and SAD Posttest Scores
as Dependent Variables

Measure and
Subscale

Ffor R2
Change

p Value

.10
.00
.01
.00

4.26
0.14
0.47
0.00

.05
.71
.50
.99

.09
.02
.00
.03

5.38
1.28
0.10
2.00

.03
.27
.76
.17

ia

c
en
Ci

SAD
In vivo
FAP
CT
IPT

de

BDI
In vivo
FAP
CT
IPT

R2
Change

Note. BDI = Beck Depression Inventory; SAD = Social Avoidance

and Distress Scale; R2 change = the percent of unique variance
explained by each subscale when added last; F for R2 change = F
test evaluating whether the unique variance explained by that subscale is a significant change from that explained by the other
subscales.

tu

uc

nd

Co

al

involved different skills. It is also of interest that even low

levels o f in vivo CT led to i m p r o v e d outcomes. Future
work will focus on i m p r o v i n g m e t h o d s for training therapists in In Vivo CT. T h e work of Safran a n d Segal (1990)
may be useful in this regard.
Keeping in m i n d that this was an u n c o n t r o l l e d trial
a n d findings must be c o n s i d e r e d p r e l i m i n a r y in nature,
the o u t c o m e data are promising. FECT achieved moderate effect sizes over CT on o u t c o m e measures traditionally used in depression studies. FECT e v i d e n c e d incremental efficacy, even t h o u g h CT p e r f o r m e d well in this
study (60% o f CT clients r e s p o n d e d successfully). Further, clients' self-reported statements of i m p r o v e m e n t
suggested that FECT clients felt they h a d i m p r o v e d m o r e
than d i d CT clients, a n d specifically a t t r i b u t e d this imp r o v e m e n t to the therapy.
FECT i m p r o v e d i n t e r p e r s o n a l functioning. O n o u r
measure of i n t e r p e r s o n a l satisfaction, CT clients d i d n o t
improve at all, while FECT clients i m p r o v e d significantly.
Further, an e x a m i n a t i o n of clients classified as failures acc o r d i n g to the BDI showed that those who received FECT
i m p r o v e d on measures o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l f u n c t i o n i n g
while CT failures d i d not. O n e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f this finding is that the items on the BDI m i g h t n o t reflect the imp r o v e m e n t o f a client who is c o n f r o n t i n g his o r h e r interpersonal avoidance a n d taking risks because these involve
an increase in psychological distress. However, confronting avoidance increases the probability o f achieving m o r e
intimate a n d satisfying relationships a n d it is possible that
the FECT failures would b e c o m e less depressed over
time. Consistent with this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the generally
improved interpersonal functioning of FECT clients might
increase their resistance to relapse. Research involving
longer-term follow-up is b e i n g p l a n n e d to provide d a t a
on these issues.
FECT clients also r e s p o n d e d m o r e favorably to their
rationale than did CT clients. This was p r e d i c t e d given
that FECT's e x p a n d e d rationale was i n t e n d e d to improve
therapy-client matching.
Future studies will provide stronger tests o f FECT's efficacy c o m p a r e d to CT on diverse o u t c o m e measures,
C u r r e n t results are promising, a n d a d d to a growing b o d y
o f literature on new, behaviorally i n f o r m e d t r e a t m e n t app r o a c h e s for adult o u t p a t i e n t psychotherapy (NelsonGray, Gaynor, & Korotitsch, 1997) such as FAP (R. J.
K o h l e n b e r g & Tsai, 1991), Acceptance a n d C o m m i t m e n t
T h e r a p y (Hayes et al., 1999), a n d Dialectical Behavior
T h e r a p y (Linehan, 1993). These treatments may h o l d
p r o m i s e in that they are r o o t e d in behavioral principles,
but, unlike earlier behavioral forays into a d u l t o u t p a t i e n t
psychotherapy, they d o n o t discard cognitive p h e n o m ena; they foster deep, intense psychotherapy e x p e r i e n c e s
a n d genuine, curative client-therapist relationships often
associated with n o n b e h a v i o r a l approaches.

es

al

tu

ex

nt

Co

Summaly and C o n c l u s i o n

te

In

as

iv

at

gr

CT therapists trained in FECT increased their focus

on using the client-therapist relationship as an in vivo
l e a r n i n g opportunity. T h e in vivo work mostly targeted
intimacy, avoidance, a n d o t h e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l relating
skills. A l t h o u g h o u r therapists markedly increased their
focus on client-therapist intimate a n d avoidant relating
when d o i n g FECT, they showed relatively small increases
in in-vivo cognitive therapy. This was surprising since, as
e x p e r i e n c e d cognitive therapists, they were already proficient at d o i n g CT interventions, whereas a t t e n d i n g to the
client-therapist intimacy a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l avoidance

as

pi

ra

Te

(Note that this result is statistically e q u i v a l e n t to finding a significant [3 only for the In Vivo subscale in the
first e q u a t i o n , w h e n all f o u r subscales were e n t e r e d
simultaneously.)
To assess the relationship between THISS subscale
scores a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l outcomes, a similar set o f equations were evaluated using SAD pre- a n d p o s t t r e a t m e n t
scores instead o f BDI scores, with similar results. SAD pretest scores a c c o u n t e d for 50% o f the variance, a n d the
subscales a c c o u n t e d for an additional 11%. Table 7 shows
that the In Vivo subscale uniquely a c c o u n t e d for most o f
this additional variance (R 2 c h a n g e = .09) a n d the o t h e r
subscales h a d negligible contributions. T h e In Vivo subscale's u n i q u e c o n t r i b u t i o n was significant, F for R 2
change (1, 23) = 5.38, p = .03, a n d no o t h e r subscales
were significant contributors.

227

228

Kohlenberg et al.
References

o
ut
it
st
In

de

ia

c
en
Ci

al

tu

uc

nd

Co

ex

nt

Co

es

al

tu

as

pi

ra

Te

te

In

as

iv

at

gr

Addis, M. E. (1995/1996). Reasons for depression and the process of

change in cognitive therapy. (Doctoral Dissertation, UniversiLv of
Washington, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, B7037.
Addis, M. E., & Carpenter, K. M. (2000). The treatment rationale in
cognitive behavioral therapy: Psychological mechanisms and clinical guidelines. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 7, 147-155.
Addis, M. E., &Jacobson, N. S. (1996). Reasons for depression and tim
process and outcome of cognitive-behavioral psychotherapies.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical P~ychology, 64, 1417-1424.
Armstrong, E D. (1981). The intraclass correlation as a measure of
interrater reliability of subjective.judgments. Nursing Re.search, 30,
314-315, 320A.
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical
aspeets. New York: Harper & Row.
Beck, A. q2, & Greenberg, R. L. (1995). Copingwith de~pression. Bala Cynwyd,
PA: The Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A.J., Shaw, E B., & Emery, G. (1979). The cognitive
therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press.
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J.
( 1961 ). An inventory for measuNng depression. Arehive~ of General
Psychiat,y, 4, 561-571.
Beck, J. S. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond. New York: Guilford Press.
Bolling, M. Y, Kohlenberg, R.J., & Parker, C. R. (2000). Behavior analysis and depression. In M.J. Dougher (Ed.), Clinical behavior anal
ysis (pp. 127-152). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Bruckner-Gordon, E, Gangi, B. K., & Walhnan, G. U. (1988). Making
therapy work: Your guide to choosing, using, and ending therapy. New
York: Harper & Row.
Butlm; S. E, Hem~; W. E, & Strupp, H. H. (1992). Measuring adherence and
skill in time limited dynamle psychotkoapy. Unpublished manuscript.
Callaghan, G. M., Naugle, A. E., & Follette, W C. (1996). Usefifl construction of the client-tberapist relationship. Ps'ichotherapy, 33,
381-390.
Castonguay, L. G., Goldfried, M. R., Wiser, S., Raue, EJ., & Hayes, A. M.
(1996). Predicting the effect of cognitive therapy for depression:
A study of unique and common factors. Jou~al of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 64, 497-504.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis o/ the behavior sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., & Cove}; L. (1973). The SCL-90:.~1
outpatient psychiatric scale. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 9, 13-28.
Dobson, K. S., Shaw, B. E, & Vallis, T. M. (1985). Reliability of a measure of the quality of cognitive therapy. B)itishJournal of Clinical
Psycholo~, 24, 295-300.
Elkin, I., Shea, T., Watkins,J. T., hnber, S. C., Sotsky, S. M., Collins,J. E,
Glass, D. R., Pilkonis, E A., Leber, W. R., Fiester, S.J., Dochert); ].,
& Parloff, M. B. (1989). NIMH treatment of depression collaborative research program. Archives of General Psychiatu, 46, 971-982.
Endicott, J., Spitzei; R. L., Fleiss,J. L., & Cohen,J. (1976). The global
assessment scale: A procedure for measuring overall seventy of
psychiatric disturbance. Archives of GeneraI Psychiatry, ~3, 766-771.
Fennel, M.J.V., & Teasdale,J. D. (1987). Cognitive therapy for depression: Individual differences and the process of change. Cognitive
Therapy and Researeh, 11, 253-271.
Ferster, C. B. (1973). A functional analysis of depression. American t~3'chologist, 28, 857-870.
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams,J. B. W (1995). Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I disonlers-Patient edition
(SCID-I/P, Version 2.0). New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute, Biometrics Research Department.
Follette, W. C., Naugle, A. E., & Callaghan, G. M. (1996). A radical
behavioral understanding of the therapeutic relationship in
effecting change. Behavior Therapy, 27, 623-641.
Goldfried, M. G. (1985). In-vivo intervention or transference? In }~,2
Dryden (Ed.), Therapists'dilemmas. London: Harper & Row.
Hainilton, M. (1967). Development of a rating scale for primaty
depressive illness. British Journal ~( Social and Clinical Psychology, 6,
276-296.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and c o m -

mitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New

York: Guilford Press.
Hollon, S. D., Evans, M. D., Auerbach, A., DeRubeis, R.J., Elkin, I.,
Lowers, A., Tuason, V. B., Kriss, M., & Piasecki, J. (1987). Development of a s~,stemfor rating therapies for depression: Differentiating cognitive therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, and clinical management
pha)vnacotherapy. Unpublished manuscript.
Hollon, S. D., & Kriss, M. R. (1984). Cognitive factors in clinical
research and practice. ClinicalPsychology Review, 4, 35-76.
Jacobson, N. S., Dobson, K. S., Truax, E A., Addis, M. E., Koerner, K.,
Gollan, J. IL, Gormm; E., & Prince, S. E. (1996). A component
analysis of cognitive behavioral treatment for depression.Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 295-304.
Judd, L. L., Akiskal, H. S., Masm;J. D., Zeller, EJ., Endicott,]., Coryell,
W., Paulus, M. E, Kunovac,J. L., Leaon, A. C., Mueller, T. 1., Rice,
J. A., & Keller, M. B. (1998). Major depressive disorder: A prospective study of residual subthreshold depressive symptoms as predictor of rapid relapse. Journal of Affbctive Disorders, 50, 97-108.
Keller, M. B., Lavori, E W., Friedman, B., Nielsen, E., Endicott, J.,
McDonald-Scott, E, & Andreasen, N. C. (1987). The hmgitudinal
interval follow-up evaluation: A comprehensive method for assessing outcome in prospective longitudinal studies. Archives of General Psvchiat~, 44, 540-548.
Kohlenberg, B. S., Yeater, E. A.. & Kohlenberg, R.J. (1998). Functional
analytic psychotherapy, the therapeutic alliance, and brief psychotherapy. In]. D. Safran &J. C. Muran (Eds.), The therapeutic alliance
in briefpsychotherapy (pp. 63-93). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kohlenberg, R. J , & Tsai, M. (1991). Functional analytic psychotherapy:
Creating intense and curative therapeutic relationships. New York:
Plenum.
Kohlenberg, R.J., & Tsai, M. (1994). Functional analytic psychothm:
apy: A radical behavioral approach to treatment and integration.
Journal ~f Ps~,chotherap)' Integration, 4, 175-201.
Kohlenberg, R.J., & Tsai, M. (1997). Functionally enhanced cognitive therapy. University of Washington: FECT Treatment Project.
Kohlenberg, R.J., & Tsai, M. (2000). Radical behavioral help for Katrina. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 7, 500-505.
Kohlenberg, R.J., Tsai, M., & Doughm; M.J. (1993). The dimensions
of clinical behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 271- 282.
Lewinsohn, E M. (1974). A behavioral approach to depression. In R.J.
Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression: Contempora U theory, and research. Washington, DC: Winston-Wiley.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disord~ New York: Guilford Press.
Martell, C. R., Addis, M. E., &Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Depression in context: Strategies for gnided action. New York: W. W. Norton.
Nelson-Gray, R., Gaynor, S. T., & Korotitsch, W.J. (1997). Behavior
therapy: Distinct but acculturated. Behavior Therapy, 28, 563-572.
Safran,J. D., & Segal, Z. V. (1990). Interpersonalprocess in cognitive therapy. New York: Basic Books.
Sarason, 1. G., Levine, H. M., Basbam, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983).
Assessing social support: The Social Support Questionnaire.Jou~:
hal q[ Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 127-139.
Shaw, B. E (1984). Specification of the training and evaluation of cognitive therapists for outcome studies. InJ. B. W. Williams & R. L.
Spitzer (Eds.), Psychotherapy research: Where are we and where shouM
we go?: Proceedings of the 73rd annual meeting of the American Psychopathological Association, New York City, March 3-5, 1983. New York:
Guilford Press.
Shaw, B. E, Elkin, I, Yamaguchi, J., Olmsted, M., Vallis, T. M., Dobson,
K. S., Lower),, A., Sotsky, S. M., Watkins, J. T., & Imbm; S. D.
(1999). Therapist competence ratings in relation to clinical outcome in cognitive therapy of depression.Jouenal of Consulting and
Clinical Psycholog3; 67, 837-846.
Shrout, E E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in
assessing rater reliability: Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
Teasdale, J. D. (1985). Psychological treatments for depression: How
do they work? Behavior Research and Therapy, 23, 157-165.
Vallis, T. M., Shaw; B. E, & Dobson, K. S. (1986). The Cognitive Therapy Scale: Psychometric properties. Journal o/"Consulting and Clinical Ps~)cholo~,, 54, 381-385.

Enhancing Cognitive Therapy

Address correspondence to RobertJ. Kohlenberg, Department of

Psychology, Box 351635, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 981951635; e-mail: fap@u.washington.edu.

Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of sociabevaluative anxiety.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448-457.
Young, J. E. (1990). Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: A schemafocused approach. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.

o
ut
it
st
In

This work was supported in part by the National Institute of Mental

Health Grant MH-53933. We also wish to acknowledge Reo Wexner for
her contributions to this project.

229

Received: January 6, 2000

Accepted: April 1, 2000

de
s

ia

c
en
Ci
al

tu

uc

nd

Co
es

al

tu

ex

nt

Co
y
as

pi

ra

Te
te

In
as

iv

at

gr

o
ut
it
st
In

de

s
ia
c
en
Ci

al
tu
uc
nd
Co

es
al
tu
ex
nt
Co

as
pi
ra
Te

te
In

as

iv

at

gr