A solid groundwork of a therapeutic relationship permits increased success as treatment develops. Therefore common factors models emphasize the collaborative work of therapist and customer, thus the emphasis is on the therapist, customer as well as the transfer between them and structure of treatment that emerges (Duncan, Miller, Wampold, & Hubble, 2010). This reason assumes that it is the similarities among the countless counseling methods, not specific complex differences that explain counseling effectiveness. The normal factors aren’t invariant, proportional permanent, or neatly addictive. They are simply interdependent, smooth and dynamic. It is a reciprocal process where in fact the role and degree of influence of any one factor are dependent on the framework. Much like recycleables in dynamics, common factors existed within an unprocessed or minimally refined. The eventual form of treatment assumes is thus entirely dependent on the materials available; the abilities of therapist & most importantly, the inclination and desire of the client (Duncan, Miller, Wampold, & Hubble, 2010)

The equivalency of remedy methods has been so difficult to refute therefore counterintuitive, that experts make reference to the happening as the Dodo bird verdict (Wampold, 2001) after Alice in Wonderlands Dodo parrot who decreed every person has won, and everything must have prizes. Which means that all treatments work and do so about evenly well. This explanation assumes that it is the similarities among the countless counseling approaches, not specific specialized differences that explain counseling performance. Any treatment will involve specific components however the way these are conducted relies on the relationships between therapist and consumer. Therapist and customer must work collaboratively to produce treatment.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Limitations Of Common Factors Model Mindset Essay
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Several conceptualizations of common factors of guidance have been proposed, from 1936 by Saul Rosenzweig (Frank and Frank 1991). However, in this article, the analyzed common factors model is the model articulated in The Heart and Soul of Change: What Works in Therapy (Duncan, Miller, Wampold, & Hubble, 2010) which is deemed with the most practical electricity for counselor educators. Under this model, there are four elements; Client/Extra therapeutic Factors, Placebo, Wish, and Expectancy Factors, Marriage Factors, and Model/Approach Factors.

Client/Extra-therapeutic Factors

As talked about all solutions are equivalent regarding outcome, and technique pales in comparison to client and marriage factors, the clients’ map of the healing territory must be attended to before ”theory” for remedy. A rapid examination of the client’s position so that the therapist could tailor all intervention appropriately (Duncan & Miller, 2000).

Client/Extra-therapeutic factors make reference to both external resources and inside resources that influence change. Extra-therapeutic factors represent a wide swathe of parameters that impact change attempts, including how well basic needs are found or changes in that they are satisfied, and fortuitous situations, such as winning a lottery, meeting a soul mates, getting a pay raise, or developing a religious awakening (Leibert, 2011). Client factors add a variety of both developed and undeveloped innate capabilities as well as natural self-healing activities one of which is the client’s own theory of change as a mean solve their own issues. Hence, Advisors would benefit from encouraging client choice in growing goals, honoring consumer perspectives about the source of the condition rather than totally applying a diagnosis, co-creating solutions alternatively than prescribing cure based on certain theoretical platform, and treating the client as a person temporarily “stuck in a difficult situation” and not as an individual who must be cared for by a doctor (Tallman and Bohart 1999). Wile (1977) believed that clients enter in therapy with the own ideas about their problems, how they developed, and how they should be fixed. Wile (1977) stated that ”many of the common disputes which come up between clients and therapists can be attributed to distinctions in their theories of [etiology and] stop”(p. 437). He instead advocated what he called usage: ”Exploring a patient’s individuality to ascertain what life learnings, encounters, and mental skills are available to cope with the challenge. . . [and]then utilizing these uniquely personal internal reactions to achieve therapeutic goals” (Erickson & Rossi, 1979, p. 1). Utilizing facilitates a favorable relationship, increases consumer participation, and therefore enhances positive results. Duncan et al. (1997) view the client’s theory of change as positioning the keys to success whatever the model employed by the therapist, and especially with cases of multiple treatment failures.

Placebo, Desire, and Expectancy Factors

Freud composed that “expectation coloured by trust and beliefs is a highly effective pressure with which we have to reckon. . . in all our makes an attempt at treatment and get rid of” (Freud, 1905/1953, p. 289). Placebo, Trust, and Expectancy factors refer to interrelated constructs reflecting the counselor or client’s values that treatment will be efficacious. When describing expectation, a cognitive construction by Snyder et al (1999) was used. In this platform, there are two types of thinking can be found: pathways pondering and company thinking. Pathway thinking is the perceived ability to assume pathways towards getting a goal. Agency thinking, the perceived ability to initiate and persist on that pathway before goal is attained.

Relationship Factors

The therapeutic relationship is considered essential to major academic institutions of remedy treatment outcomes, and is also one of the most analyzed common factors in counselling. The partnership broadly includes “any and all motivations and activities of client and therapist, including hostility, seductiveness, humor, ingratiation, guilt, etc”. In some literature, therapeutic romance is trans-theoretically made as healing alliance, a collaborative romantic relationship between counselor and client producing a relationship and an agreement about the goals and jobs of treatment (Bordin 1979). The relationship is seen as a mutual trust supported by necessary and sufficient conditions of empathy, friendliness, unconditional positive respect, and congruence. This is what Roger advocated in his person centered strategy. Counselor interventions and characteristics that seem to universally enhance healing alliance are energetic listening, empathy, value for the client and the client’s notion of problem severeness and a non-judgmental frame of mind.

In distinction, counselor interventions that have shown equivocal associations with a solid relationship include advice-giving, degree of directiveness, use of open-ended questioning, interpretations, and self-disclosure. Qualitative research shows that all clients do not perceive empathy the same manner. An aspect of growing and preserving strong alliances occurs when confronted with client hostility, defensiveness or avoidance (Gaston et al. 1988; Muranet al. 1994). Under these conditions, counselors are vulnerable to responding counterproductively, such as communicating subtle criticisms or belittling clients. Advisors should strengthen their clients for providing feedback, so an open, honest treatment environment will be created and sustained. By creating this environment, disruptions in the counselling process can be functioned through prior to the treatment alliance is destroyed (Bachelor & Horvath). The alliance is a robust predictor of result and can make the difference between early dropout and successful outcome.

Model/Approach Factors

Models and techniques can refer both to overall universities of counseling or even to specific interventions or techniques within that guidance orientation. Although distinctions in models and techniques are present. However, it was felt that it’s the commonalities among the models and techniques alternatively than their dissimilarities that produce them effective. The words used varies across solutions, but these fundamental features imbue all major types of counseling (Duncan, Miller, Wampold, & Hubble, 2010). This type of research strongly means that instead of attempting to decide which approach is most efficacious, it is best to ascertain which specific way is most helpful for specific clients. When orientation and strategy are congruent with consumer worldview, skills and resources, it is more likely that contract of goals and tasks of treatment are secured. When treatment orientation is personalized to clients, trust is instilled, the partnership is improved, and extra-therapeutic factors are optimized (Duncan, Miller, Wampold, & Hubble, 2010).

Limitations of Common Factors model

Counseling from one common factors approach does not mean that counselors have license to haphazardly use any intervention at any time. Counseling models provide composition and concentration in sessions, characteristics considered essential to outcome. On the other hand, adopting no strategy, or changing strategies frequently, hazards interrupting the move of guidance and interfering with assembly clients’ needs. Counseling from a standard factors approach will not mean model-less counselling. Somewhat, clinicians who practice using a common factors approach to counselling enlist their clients’ strengths, resources, and unique things of view, because these factors are highly associated with guidance outcomes. Attention to client perceptions of the client-counselor alliance, and optimization of client hopefulness by using interventions that are constant with customer worldviews, are also essential the different parts of the empirically verified common factors approach (Lebert, 2011). Extreme caution should be exercised when interpreting the alliance-outcome link. But the client-counselor alliance is a strong predictor of results, it only talks about about five percent of the variance in results, departing 95% of outcome variance unexplained (Libert, 2011). Indeed, information points to the individual of the counselor as a far more strong predictor of final result. Wampold (2001) found more result variance described by counselor competence (i. e. , 6 -9%) than to the client- counselor alliance (i. e. , 5%). Though the person of the counselor is a relatively neglected variable, information reveals large specific differences in counselors (Okiishi et al. 2003).

Reflection on common factors

Counselling is a value filled process largely inspired by western ethnicities and theories. In addition, therapists will be affected by their own beliefs systems and ideals which may or might not be align with the client’s own implicit theory or theory of change. From an ethical point of view, therapist should keep an eye on conflicts which may arise due to dissimilarities in values and should not be clouded by their own ideals and put it to use as a browsing lens to see the clients. This would leads to poor therapeutic marriage. Instead, the common factors model is handy for training therapists to count upon to suspend their principles and try to build a restorative relationship with the client. It also provides as a reminder for therapists to keep an eye on as well concerning recognize the importance of building restorative relationship with your client in the specialized medical settings through the normal factors in order to strengthen the therapeutic alliance which would lead to better collaborative work between therapist and consumer.