Family Therapy

 

1)Read “Topic 7: Vargas Family Case Study.”

Identify one member of the Vargas family whose dominant story could use some rewriting.

Read the workshop notes on Reauthoring Conversations.

Part 1: In 250-300 words, write a counseling note for the client’s file. In this note, describe any exceptions to the problem that you have identified and develop scaffolding questions to ask the client in your next session, one in their landscape of action and one in their landscape of identity.

Part 2: Put yourself in the client’s shoes and, as the client, write a reauthoring version of their story that is 500-750 words in length. It should incorporate the exceptions and responses to the scaffolding questions from Part 1. Use narrative language when applying this reauthoring technique.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

 

2) Read 

Solution-Focused Brief Therapy: A Review of the Outcome Research 

located in the topical materials. Identify a specific presenting concern that one of the Vargas family members has identified this week. Create a “transcript” of a session as a solution-focused counselor, using solution-oriented terms and concepts, to work with the client in identifying a solution to the problem. The transcript should be 500-750 words in length.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

PCN-521 Topic 7: Vargas Case Study

Since the last session, you received a call from Elizabeth who stated her family was in crisis. She reported that her nephew Geoff, the 15-year-old stepson of Bob’s sister, Katie, had nearly overdosed. She said that the family had noticed some changes with Geoff since his father’s recent death, but attributed the poor mood and slipping grades to the normal effects of grief. Elizabeth said that Geoff had never used drugs, as far as anybody in the family knew, and that the overdose was “a total surprise.” Elizabeth reported that after learning of this, Bob’s mother, Linda, called the school counselor but complained to Katie that “she was not at all helpful,” and told Katie exactly how she should handle it. Katie spoke with the school counselor who told her that she was not allowed to speak with Linda due to matters of confidentiality. Elizabeth informed you that Katie had shared her frustration with the school counselor’s suggestions to help him “get his mind off the sadness,” and believed he needed more help. You learned that Bob’s father, Tim, was trying his best to help, and that Elizabeth felt his intrusion was making matters worse. Among other things, Tim had taken Geoff out of school on a week-long camping trip against Katie’s wishes. Elizabeth said that the involvement of Linda and Tim, despite their good intentions, had begun to cause widespread family strife and asked if you could possibly see the entire family.

© 2016. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

© 2015. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

The Impact of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy
with At-Risk Junior High School Students

W Sean Newsome

Recently, the use of solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) has received considerable attention
in school settings. However, limited empirical evidence supports the utility and effectiveness of
SFBT with at-risk students. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to evaluate the impact

of SFBT with a group of at-risk students in a junior high school. A total of 26 students
participated in eight group sessions of SFBT in a junior high school located in central Ohio.

Compared with pretreatment assessments, students participating in SFBT had higher scores on
behavioral and social scales at posttreatment and at six-week follow-up. This fmding was also
uncovered on the external assessments completed by parents and teachers. Implications for

school social workers and the treatment of at-risk populations in school settings are discussed.

KEY WORDS; at-risk students; outcome research; school underachievement; solution-focused brief therapy

O
ver the past two decades, the term “at
risk” has received considerable attention.
Many authors have gone to great lengths

to define and articulate the complexities associated
with the term (Carnegie Council on Adolescent
Development, 1989;Dryfoos, 1990,1998;Kazdin,
1993; Resnick & Burt, 1996), Along these same
lines, research has developed understanding of the
major risk and protective factors associated with
at-risk populations (Bryson, 1997; Collingwood,
1997; Kominski, Jamieson, & Martinez, 2001),

For some, at risk refers to the increased likeli-
hood over base rates that a youth would engage in
a particular behavior that results in psychological,
cognitive, and social impairment (Dryfoos, 1990;
Kazdin, 1993;Resnick & Burt, 1996). Others, how-
ever, point to the exposure of environmental issues
such as homelessness, poverty, dangerous neighbor-
hoods, and family dysfunction that place youths at-
risk (Dryfoos, 1998; Hechinger, 1992; Thompson
& Kelly-Vance, 2001), With such considerations
studies cite the alarming number of youths engaged
in activities (for example, substance abuse, sexual
activity, delinquency, dropping out of school) or
put in situations (for example, homelessness or so-
cially deprived rural and urban areas) that place
them at risk (Dryfoos, 1998; Hechinger).

Along with the complexities associated with
being at risk, the term also describes children and
adolescents facing an uncertain future in K—12
educational settings. Routinely, studies cite the his-
tory of absenteeism, tardiness, below average school
achievement, low expectations, external locus of
control, and behavioral problems associated with
at-risk youths Pryfoos, 1990; Nunn & Parish, 1992).
More important, these studies point to the increased
likelihood of school failure and the probability of
these youths dropping out of school (Dryfoos, 1998),
As a result, the necessity of uncovering interven-
tions and support services that enhance the overall
school achievement of at-risk youths in K-12 edu-
cation becomes paramount,

K-12 professionals such as school social workers
seek to provide the greatest optimal level of growth
for at-risk youths by focusing on the progression,
development, and evaluation of interventions. So-
lution-focused brief therapy (SPBT) has received
interest in addressing at-risk youths in school set-
tings. With emphasis on collaborative goal formu-
lation that focuses on client strengths, researchers
and practitioners have applied or proposed the use
of SFBT as a practical and sensible alternative in
school settings (Corcoran, 1998; Dielman &
Franklin, 1998; Franklin, Biever, Moore, demons.

CCC Code: 1532-8759/05 $3,00 C200S National Association of Sociai Workers

& Scamardo, 2001; Littrell, Malia, & Vanderwood,
1995; Murphy, 1997; Selekman, 1993; Thompson
& Littrell, 1998;Watkins & Kurtz, 2001).

Despite promising results, a limited number of
outcome studies have been conducted testing
SFBT with at-risk youths in school settings (See
Gingerich & Eisengart, 2000) .Thus, there is a criti-
cal need to assess SFBT as a possible treatment al-
ternative. I conducted a study to assess the impact
and effectiveness of SFBT with junior high school
students in central Ohio who were identified as
being at risk of behavioral, social, and academic
failure.

APPLICATION OF SFBT IN
SCHOOL SETTINGS
Over the past decade SFBT has been applied or
suggested with youths coping with emotional and
behavioral disorders (Franklin et al.,2001;Thomp-
son & Littrell, 1998), youths coping with ADHD
(Dielman & Franklin, 1998), addressing the
overrepresentation of African American youths in
special education (Watkins & Kurtz, 2001), and
parents seeking interventions for their “difEcult”
youths (Selekman, 1993). SFBT has been proposed
as a progressive model that focuses on strengths and
solutions rather than problems and deficits
(Corcoran, 1998; Dielman & Franklin; Franklin et
al., 2001; Kurtz, 1997; Murphy, 1997; Murphy &
Duncan, 1997; Selekman, 1993).

In using SFBT in school settings, practitioners
focus on changing future behavior by constructing
behavioral tasks that lead to rapid solutions for
youths (Franklin et al., 2001). Such solutions in
behavior are achieved by shifting the youth’s focus
from one of despair and deficiency to one of hope
and potential.To enhance and shift behaviors, mul-
tiple techniques in the SFBT model have been dis-
cussed to help facilitate practice with at-risk youths
(Corcoran, 1998; Franklin, Corcoran, Nowicki, &
Streeter, 1998; Krai, 1995; Kurtz, 1997; Selekman,
1993). The shift from deficiency to potential is
achieved by displaying a nonjudgmental demeanor
that allows for open dialogue; by using solution-
oriented language that emphasizes exceptions and
potential solutions; by using future-oriented ques-
tions such as the miracle question, which allows
the at-risk youth to envision a reality and life with-
out the problem; by using scaling questions, which
allow the at-risk youth to pay attention to goal
development; and by using direct and indirect com-

pliments that focus on the at-risk youth’s strengths
and resources (Corcoran, 1998).

Given the techniques associated with SFBT, at-
risk youths may begin to co-construct with school
social workers a reality that focuses on their future
success in school. SFBT empowers the school so-
cial worker and at-risk youth with the ability to
pursue relative and common goals necessary for
success. At-risk youths then cultivate a sense of
control and responsibility that enables them to navi-
gate their own behavioral, social, and educational
experience.

METHOD
The study was designed to answer the following
questions: Will SFBT enhance the social skills of
at-risk youths as measured by the Social Skills Rat-
ing System (SSRS) (Gresham & Elliott, 1990)?Will
SFBT enhance the classroom behavior of at-risk
youths, as measured by the Behavioral and Emo-
tional Rating Scale (BERS) (Epstein & Sharma,
1998)? Will SFBT enhance the completion of
homework by at-risk youths, as measured by the
Homework Problem Checklist (HPC) (Anesko,
Scholock, Ramirez, & Levine, 1987)?

Recruitment of Participants
The student population for this study was between
ages 11 and 14. Participants were selected from the
current seventh and eighth grade roster from the
participating central Ohio junior high school. Po-
tential participants for the study were defined as
“any student in the seventh or eighth grade identi-
fied as being at risk of academic problems based on
below average academic performance and/or
chronic and/or low attendance from the previous
academic year and who was not receiving or cur-
rently under the provisions of an individual educa-
tion plan (IEP).”

The assistant principal and two school counse-
lors compiled a list of 90 students deemed at risk
of behavioral, social, and academic failure. Outlines
and letters that explained the study in detail were
mailed to the parents of potential participants. Each
letter provided an overview of SFBT, the length of
the study, the intervention focus, and a request for
their participation. A parental consent form was
also mailed to the parents. Consent letters had to
be signed and returned before the onset of treat-
ment. A total of 28 students were available to par-
ticipate in the study. In keeping with university

84 Children &Schoob VOLUME 27, N U M B E R 2 A P R I L 2005

requirements, Ohio State University’s Human
Subjects Committee and Internal Reviev̂ f Board
(IRB) approved all study procedures for the re-
quirement of human participants.

Providing SFBT Group It-eatment
The research study began in mid-January 2002 and
concluded during mid-March 2002.Two MSW II
interns (one man and one woman), the school so-
cial worker at the junior high school, and I facili-
tated the delivery of SFBT to four groups. Initial
placement of the participants in the SFBT groups
was based on class schedule, the grade of the stu-
dent, and the likelihood that SFBT would not in-
terfere with the student’s academic classes. Eight
seventh-grade students were placed in group A, con-
ducted by the school social worker; eight seventh-
grade students were placed in group B, conducted
by the male MSW II intern; six eighth-grade stu-
dents were placed in group C, conducted by the
female MSW II intern; and six eighth-grade stu-
dents were placed in group D, conducted by me.
Each group met on Mondays except for one week
in January because of the Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr, holiday. During that week, each group met on
Wednesday during their usual time.

The rationale for using a SFBT group modality
was based on several reasons. First, it was impor-
tant that group members recognize that they were
not alone in having issues pertaining to behavioral,
social, and academic failure. It was equally impor-
tant to provide group members with an opportu-
nity to share their thoughts and feelings about
school success. It was then anticipated that group
members would have the experience of getting
support from group facilitators and group mem-
bers while also recognizing that they are valuable
and worthwhile people despite their challenges.
Such opportunities and experiences allow group
members to form a connection with others and to
increase their consciousness and commitment to
action (Kurland & Salmon, 1992), The content
covered in each group is discussed in the follow-
ing section,

• Session 1: Introductions. Obtained in-
formed consent for participation. Discussed
group expectations. Discussed the goals of
the group (that is, to increase academic com-
petence, classroom conduct, homework
completion, and attendance levels).

• Session 2: In-Session Assignment. Stu-
dents were asked “What academic/school
goals do you have this semester?” and “What
do you hope to achieve by participating in
this group for the next eight weeks?” Used
the miracle question,

• Session 3. Use of the Scaling Question.
Students were asked “On a scale from 1 to
10, with 1 being your academic/school goals
not achieved and 10, your academic/school
goals completely achieved, where would you
rate yourself as a student today?” Homework
assignment for next week:”Where would you
like to be on the scale at the end of the se-
mester, and provide the group with ways you
will accomplish this increase” (goal and fu-
ture oriented).

• Session 4. Review of Session 3 H o m e –
work Assignment. Held group discussion
on “signs of success” in achieving academic/
school goals. Homework assignment for next
week: First, “If I asked Mr,/Ms, ,
your teacher how he/she had wit-
nessed these signs of success in your academic/
school goals, what do you think he/she would
say?”(that is, the relationship question), Sec-
ond,”please write down your signs of success
in which you came closer to reaching your
end-of-the-semester score on the 1 to 10
scale,”

• Session 5: Review of Session 4 H o m e –
work Assignment. Used the solution-fo-
cused brief therapy technique EARS (that
is, elicit, amplify, reinforce, and start over).
Used the exception-finding question to am-
plify and reinforce present and future
change.

• Session 6: Revisit the Scaling Ques-
tion. Gave homework assignment: A letter
from the “older, wiser, self” (Dolan, 1995).
“Imagine that you have grown to be a
healthy, wise old man/women and you are
looking back on this period of your life.
What would this older wiser man/women
suggest to you, which helped you get to where
you are now in your academic/school
goal(s)?”

• Session 7: Review of Session 6 H o m e –
work Assignment. Discussed how the”new”
self had emerged: Used EARS, Homework
assignment: “A letter from the future.”

N E W S O M E / The Impact of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy with At-Risk Junior High School Students

• Session 8: Review of Session 7 H o m e –
work Assignment. Discussed setbacks as be-
ing normal. Passed out certificates of suc-
cess.

Ensuring Tk’eatment Integrity
To ensure treatment integrity the two MSW II
interns and I were trained in the application of SFBT
at an eight-week course during summer 2001. My
academic adviser, who has extensive practice expe-
rience with the SFBT model, conducted the SFBT
training.Training consisted of lecture material, vid-
eotapes, and role playing using the SFBT technique.
The school social worker, who had taken classes at
Ohio State University on the application of SFBT,
was also provided with videotapes and reading
material before the onset of the study.

Detailed steps were conducted to ensure the
treatment of SFBT. I developed the protocol used
in the study to ensure a group focus on the out-
come measures of social, behavioral, and home-
work assignments. SFBT group facilitators met one
hour before each treatment session to discuss the
focus of the groups as oudined by the SFBT pro-
tocol. Last, participants had to complete at least five
of the eight sessions to be included in the data
analyses.

Data Source and Instrumentation
Selection of the instruments was made on the fol-
lowing criteria: psychometric validity, relevance to
theoretical approach, applicability to outcome re-
search in school settings, readability, ease of comple-
tion, and self-administering time (Crawford-
Seagram, 1997) .The instruments selected were the
Homework Problem Checklist (HPC) (Anesko et
al., 1987), the Behavioral and Emotional Rating
Scale (BERS) (Epstein & Sharma, 1998), and the
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) (Gresham &
Elliott, 1990).

Homework Problem Checklist (HPC). The HPC
was used to assess the participants’ homework
completion skills. The HPC is a 20-item instru-
ment designed to measure the frequency and in-
tensity of children’s homework problems.The 20-
item questionnaire is administered to parents for
assessing the difficulties their children are having
with homework. The HPC uses a Likert scale in
which “never,” “at times,” “often,” or “very often”
are used.The HPC is easily scored by summing the
20 items, which then produces a score between 0

and 60. The higher the summed score, the greater
frequency and intensity of homework problems, as
rated by the child’s parent (Anesko et al., 1987;
Corcoran & Fisher, 2000).

Reliability and validity measures indicate that
the HPC has routinely displayed excellent internal
consistency levels with an alpha level of .91 and
good known-groups validity; significantly discrimi-
nating between children rated by their parents as
“below” versus “on or above grade level.” Most
important, the HPC is an excellent measurement
that is sensitive to change produced by an inter-
vention (Anesko et al., 1987; Corcoran & Fisher,
2000).

Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale (BERS)
and Social Skills Rating System (SSRS). The BERS
and the SSRS were used to assess the classroom
behavior and social skills displayed by the treat-
ment participants. The BERS consists of 52 items
that rate the participant’s interpersonal strengths,
family involvement, intrapersonal strengths, school
functioning, and affective strengths (Epstein &
Sharma, 1998). Routinely, the BERS has demon-
strated consistent reliability and validity across
multiple raters (Early, 2001).

Internal consistency of the total scale and
subscales along with test-retest reliability measure-
ments conducted with school-age children has
shown the BERS to be consistendy strong and
high. The interrater reliability coefficients have
ranged from .83 for interpersonal strength to .96
for family involvement, with total scale interrater
reliability at .98 (Epstein & Sharma, 1998). The
BERS vras used and completed by the participants’
teachers.

Administered to students participating in the
study, the SSRS assesses student cooperation, as-
sertion, responsibility, empathy, and self-control and
can be used in conjunction with a treatment in-
tervention to assess behavior in the classroom. The
SSRS provides a broad outcome measurement of
a student’s social behaviors—behaviors that can af-
fect teacher-student relations, peer acceptance, and
performance (Gresham & Elliott, 1990).The SSRS
consists of 34 items that use a Likert scale in which
0 = “I never do this behavior,” 1 = “I sometimes
do this behavior,” and 2 = “I very often do this
behavior.”

The SSRS was standardized on a national sample
of 4,000 students and youths between ages three
and 18.The sample was selected from 18 states and

Children &Schools VOLUME 27, N U M B E R 2 A P R I L 2005

was stratified by grade and gender, with separate
norms for boys and girls and for students who were
classified as emotionally impaired and not emo-
tionally impaired. Routinely, the SSRS has shown
strong and high reliability and validity. Across all
forms and levels, the SSRS median coefficient al-
pha reliability was .90, and the internal consistency
estimates ranged from .83 to .94 (Gresham & Elliott,
1990).

Procedure
To test the treatment effectiveness of SFBT, mul-
tiple data assessment periods took place. Assessment
sessions using the HPC, BERS, and the SSRS be-
gan during the fourth marking period of January
2002 (that is, pretest and session 1 of SFBT) and at
the onset of the fifth marking period during mid-
March 2002 (that is,posttest and session 8 of SFBT).
There was a six-week follow-up assessment at the
end of April 2002 using the SSRS instrument with
the participants.

Each SFBT group facilitator administered the
SSRS during session 1 and session 8 of the study.
According to each group facilitator, the SSRS took
approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete. Dur-
ing the six-week foUow-up assessment, the two MSW
II interns and I co-administered the SSRS in a group
format to the participants. The follow-up assess-
ment lasted approximately 25 to 30 minutes.

The HPC, which required the participant’s
parent’s participation and completion, was admin-
istered on two occasions. The HPC was mailed to
parents at the onset of SFBT treatment beginning
mid-January 2002 and at the conclusion of SFBT
treatment during mid-March 2002.To ensure con-
sistency, the HPC was mailed to each parent on
the day in which their child was assessed using the
SSRS. Parents who did not return the HPC within
two weeks from the time of mailing received a fol-
low-up phone call requesting completion and re-
turn of the measurement. As a result, all HPCs were
returned.

The BERS, which required teachers’ participa-
tion and completion, was also administered on two
occasions: at the onset of SFBT treatment begin-
ning mid-January 2002 and at the conclusion of
SFBT treatment during mid-March 2002. To en-
sure consistency the BERS was given to lead teach-
ers representing the participant’s grade (that is, ei-
ther seventh or eighth grade). The BERS was
completed by groups of teachers; items were read

aloud by lead teachers and then discussed and agreed
on by the teachers relative to the participant re-
ceiving treatment. Lead teachers who did not re-
turn the measurements within the two-week time
frame of the pretest and posttest received a note in
their mailbox asking for their return. As a result, all
BERS were returned.

RESULTS
Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were
conducted to test the effectiveness of SFBT. Com-
parisons are presented from time 1 (pretest) to time
2 (posttest), and time 3 (six-week follow-up) using
the SSRS. Comparisons are also presented between
time 1 and time 2 for teachers using the BERS and
parents using the HPC. Differences and changes in
the mean scores were considered significant at the
p < .05 level.

Sample Characteristics
In general, the response to participation was posi-
tive. At the onset, 28 students agreed to participate
in one of the four SFBT treatment groups. How-
ever, two of the 28 participants moved from the
school district during week 3 and week 5 of treat-
ment. As a result, only 26 participants received
SFBT for eight weeks and were included in the
analysis.White participants made up 80 percent {n
— 21) of the sample, followed by African Ameri-
cans who made up 20 percent (« = 5). Seventy-
three percent (n = 19) were boys, and 27 percent
(n = 7) were girls. Fifty percent (M = 13) were in
the seventh grade, and 50 percent (n = 13) were in
the eighth grade, with a mean age of 13.19 (SD =
.74).

Participant SSRS Scores from Time 1 to
Time 2 and Time 2 to Time 3
Significant group differences emerged from initial
assessment to completion of treatment using the
SSRS. A one (group) by three (time periods) re-
peated measures analysis of variance revealed a sig-
nificant effect for the within-subjects factor of
testing time on the SSRS [F(l, 25) = 15.36; p < .001].The changes in time accounted for 38 per- cent of the total variation in participant scores (par- tial r|^= .38). Polynomial contrast comparisons of this statistically significant pattern of change over time revealed significant linear [F(l,25) = 15.93;p < .001] and quadratic [F(l, 25) = 14.71;;) < .001] effects.

N E W S O M E / The Impact of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy with At-Risi Junior High School Students

Visual inspection of the mean scores indicated
that the significant linear effect was due primarily
to a large change in SSRS scores between time 1
(M= 42.34; SD = 11.23) and time 2 (M= 51,81;
SD = 12.34). However, the participants’ scores lev-
eled off and did not increase between time 2 and
time 3 (M = 49.73; SD = 10,08), accounting for
the significant quadratic effect. In other words, stu-
dents improved dramatically after the eight weeks
of the intervention and maintained these gains at
the six-week follow-up but did not show further
improvement.

Teacher BERS Scores between Time 1
and Time 2
Significant group differences emerged from initial
assessment to the completion of treatment using
the BERS, Bivariate analysis of teacher responses
on the BERS found that participants receiving
SFBT exhibited improvements from the onset of
treatment to the conclusion of treatment. Specifi-
cally, paired sample (tests indicated that the mean
total score at the conclusion of treatment was M =
75.23 {SD = 18,84), whereas the mean total score
at the onset of treatment was M = 64.88 {SD =
21.19).This finding was statistically significant on
the BERS [((25) = 3.59, p < .01] immediately fol- lowing treatment.

Parent HPC Scores between Time 1
and Time 2
Statistically significant differences also emerged fixjm
initial assessment to the completion of treatment
using the HPC, It should be recalled that the lower
the summated score on the HPC, the less problem-
atic behavior the student exhibits in completing
his or her homework as perceived by his or her
parents, Bivariate analysis of parent responses on
the HPC found that participants receiving SFBT
exhibited improvements from the onset of treat-
ment to the completion of treatment. Paired sample
(tests indicated that the mean total score at posttest
was M = 27.73 {SD = 12,06) whereas the mean
total score at the onset of treatment was M = 31,57
{SD = 13.42).This finding was statistically signifi-
cant on the HPC [((25) = 3,17, p < ,04] immedi- ately following treatment.

DISCUSSION
SFBT has demonstrated some success with at-risk
and K-12 populations (Dielman & Franklin, 1998;

Franklin et al., 2001;Teall, 2000; Thompson &
Littrell, 1998;Watkins & Kurtz, 2001).The results
of the present study point to the importance of
SFBT in addressing at-risk youths who were iden-
tified for school underachievement. More impor-
tant, there appears to be some evidence for the con-
tinued use of SFBT with at-risk populations. In
fact, statistically significant change was found along
social and behavioral areas with this population.

It was found that group participants enhanced
their social skills from pretreatment to posttreat-
ment as measured by the SSRS. Students partici-
pating in SFBT improved after treatment and main-
tained these gains at the six-week foUow-up. The
findings also suggest that the content covered in
each group session cultivated the participants’
strengths in maintaining this change. Over the eight
weeks of treatment, participants focused on present
and future goal attainment instead of the problems
associated with their behaviors. Such content may
have provided participants with an image of what
school could be like when goals are formulated
and a vision of the future takes place.

Similarly, it was found that participants improved
their overall classroom behavior as measured by the
BERS. To the point, teachers perceived behavioral
and social gains in the classroom for participants
receiving SFBT. Changes on the SSRS and BERS
instruments are of particular interest because they
suggest a potential link between the participants’
recognition of dealing appropriately with teachers
and peers in the classroom and the interpersonal
strengths developed during SFBT treatment.

Parents also perceived that participants receiving
SFBT displayed fewer issues related to homework
completion.Thus, parents perceived higher on-task
completion of homework at the conclusion of SFBT
treatment. The importance of this finding is that
the completion of homework has been strongly
linked to the students’ academic success.This is es-
pecially important given the demands placed on
school social workers to identify interventions that
affect the academic and behavioral success of stu-
dents (Franklin, 2001), However, these results should
be interpreted with caution, as there were several
limitations in the study.

Limitations
Although the findings from this study are encour-
aging, they are far from conclusive. Given the small
sample size and the research design, the degree to

88

Children & Schools VOLUME 27, N U M B E R 2 A P R I L 2005

which the findings can be generalized is limited. In
addition, a comparison group was not included in
the analysis. Testing SFBT under experimental or
quasi-experimental conditions with a comparison
group could aid in assessing SFBT effectiveness.

It is also unclear whether the changes on the
SSRS, BERS, and HPC were the result of some
other factor. Researchers and practitioners must
recognize that participants are aware of the social
desirability of answers when using self-reports
(Cook & Campbell, 1979). Responses from self-
reports, therefore, should encompass other behav-
ioral and academic data to help confirm their find-
ings. Issues such as the time of year SFBT took
place, the maturation of participants, and other
environmental events may also have influenced
treatment outcomes. In addition, the tracking of
additional interventions (that is, meetings with
school counselors, school psychologists, assistant
principals, school building principals; the use of
parent—teachers conferences; and treatment pro-
vided by outside agencies) should have been moni-
tored to fuUy assess and evaluate the gains attribut-
able to SFBT. Last, there was no random assignment
or sampling within the research design. Parents and
students volunteered to participate in the study, thus
self-selection biases may be present. Despite these
limitations, some implications for school social
workers can be drawn.

Implications
Tremendous pressure has been placed on school
social workers to enhance the behavioral, social,
and academic competence levels of at-risk youths.
More important, school social workers have a re-
sponsibility to nurture a future with at-risk youths
that is filled with aspiration and hope. The results
from this study provide support for the continued
evaluation and application of SFBT with at-risk
youths by school social workers.

The results of this study suggest the effective-
ness of SFBT in addressing issues that are impor-
tant to student success. Students who received
SFBT showed improvement on each of the three
scales used in the study. Favorable outcomes were
found in improvement of social and behavioral ar-
eas as measured by the SSRS and BERS. More im-
portant, students participating in SFBT displayed
gains on each of these instruments despite the se-
verity of their academic performance and atten-
dance patterns during the previous year. Such find-

ings are important given that schools are social
systems in which at-risk populations must so-
cially interact and respect boundaries established
by peers, teachers, school administrators, and sup-
port staff.

Favorable outcomes also were found in home
behaviors associated with the completion of home-
work. These findings are important given the re-
wards often associated with homework comple-
tion. Even more important is that SFBT helped
augment attitudes and behaviors regarding home-
work completion as perceived by parents. Parents
reported fewer problems associated with homework
completion at the conclusion of SFBT.

This finding is also of interest given the current
escalating demands placed on school social work-
ers to identify treatment interventions that affect
student success. As a result of these demands, em-
phasis in many K—12 settings is placed on how well
school social workers’ interventions affect the bot-
tom line. In fact, many school administrators and
principals readily assert the importance of inter-
ventions that enhance the academic and behavioral
success of at-risk populations. Accordingly, the re-
sults from this study not only provide support for
the application of SFBT with at-risk junior high
school students, but also address issues asserted by
school stakeholders.

CONCLUSION
Research over the past two decades suggests the
importance of identifying interventions that im-
prove the academic and behavioral success of at-
risk students. Researchers and practitioners assert
the factors and complexities associated with being
at risk and their potential impact on child and ado-
lescent well-being.This study found that SFBT has
potential in facilitating and empowering at-risk stu-
dents in junior high school settings. It also suggests
that SFBT may contribute to the empowerment of
at-risk students in developing a more optimistic
vision of the future.

However, it should be pointed out that SFBT is
not a remedy to the issues affecting at-risk youths
in K—12 settings. SFBT is by no means meant to
replace the preventive measures designed to ad-
dress the roots of the problem. More important, the
ultimate success of addressing this vulnerable popu-
lation can occur only when broad-scale social, eco-
nomic, political, and educational reforms take place
in K-12 settings. S

N E W S O M E / The Impact of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy with At-Risk Junior High School Students

REFERENCES
Anesko, K. M., Scholock, G., Ramirez, R., & Levine, F.

M. (1987).The Homework Problem Checklist:
Assessing children’s homework difficulties. Behavioral
Assessment, 9, 179-185.

Bryson, K. (1997). America’s children at risk (Census Brief/
97-2).Washington, D C : U.S. Census Bureau.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989).
Turning points: Preparing youth for the 21st century.
New York: Carnegie Corporation.

CoUingwood,T. R . (1997). Providing physical fitness
programs to at-risk youth. Quest, 49, 67-84.

Cook,T. D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimenta-
tion: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Corcoran, J. (1998). Solution-focused practice with
middle and high school at-risk youths. Social Work in
Education, 20, 232-243.

Corcoran, K., & Fisher, J. (2000). Measures for clinical
practice:A source book-^Vol. 1 couples, families and
children. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Crawford-Seagram, B. (1997). The efficacy of solution-focused
therapy with young offenders [Doctoral dissertation].
Ann Arbor, MI: Bell & Howell.

Dielman, M. B., & Franklin, C. (1998). Brief solution-
focused therapy with parents and adolescents with
ADHD. Social Work in Education, 20, 261-268.

Dolan,Y. M. (1995, May 5-6). Uving a wonderful life:A
solution focused approach to help clients move beyond a
survivor identity. Workshop sponsored by the Brief
Therapy Training Center of Canada,Toronto.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and
prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1998). Safe passage: Making it through adolescence
in a risky society. New York: Oxford University Press.

Early,J.T. (2001). Measures for practice with families fix)m
a strengths perspective. Families in Society, 82, 225-232.

Epstein, M. H., & Sharma, H. M. (1998). Behavioral and
Emotional Rating Scale: A strength-based approach to
assessment. Austin,TX: PRO-ED.

Franklin, C. (2001, May). National trends in school social
work. Paper presented at the Ohio School Social
Work Association, School Social Workers Connect-
ing for Effective Advocacy Conference, Columbus.

Franklin, C , Biever,J., Moore, K., Clemons, D., &
Scamardo, M. (2001). The effectiveness of solution-
focused therapy with children in a school setting.
Research on Social Work Practice, il, 4 1 1 – 4 3 4 .

Franklin, C , Corcoran,J., Nowicki,J., & Streeter, C.
(1998). Using client self-anchored scales to measure
outcomes in solution-focused therapy. Jowma/ of
Systemic Therapies, J 6, 256-265.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skilb Rating
System manual. Circle Plains, M N : American
Guidance Service.

Gingerich, W J., & Eisengart, S. (2000). Solution-focused
brief therapy: A review of the outcome research.
Family Process, 39, 477-498.

Hechinger. F (1992). Fateful choices: Healthy youth for the
2ist century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Kazdin, A. E. (1993). Adolescent mental health: Preven-
tion and treatment programs. American Psychologist,
48, 127-141.

Kominski, R., Jamieson, A., & Martinez, G. (2001). At-risk
conditions of U. S. school children (Census Brief
C E N B R / 1 – 6 ) . Washington, D C : U.S. Census
Bureau.

Krai, R . (1995). Strategies that work:Techniquesfor solutions
in school. Milwaukee: Brief Family Therapy Press.

Kurland, R., & Salmon, R . (1992). Groupwork vs.
casework in a group. Principals and implications for

teaching and practice. Social Work with Croups, 15,
3-14.

Kurtz, P. (1997). Clients as resources: Empowering school
social work practice with students, families, and
communities. SodalWork in Education, 19, 211-218.

Littrell,J. M., MaUa. J. A., &Vanderwood, M. (1995).
Single-session brief counseling in a high school.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 451—458.

Murphy, J. (1997). Solution-focused counseling in middle and
high schools. Alexandria,VA: American Counseling
Associations.

Murphy, J., & Duncan, B. (1997). Brief intervention for
school problems: Collaborating for practical solutions. New
York: Guilford Press.

Nunn, G. D , & Parish,X S. (1992).The psychosocial
characteristics of at-risk high school students.
Adolescence, 21, 435-439.

Resnick, G., & Burt, M. R . (1996).Youth at risk:
Definitions and implications for service delivery.
American foumal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 172-188.

Selekman, M. (1993). Pathways to change: Brief therapy
solutions with difficult adolescents. New York: Guilford
Press.

Teall, B. (2000). Using solution-oriented interventions in
an ecological frame: A case illustration. Social Work in
Education, 22, 5 4 – 6 1 .

Thompson, L.A., & Kelly-Vance, L. (2001).The impact
of mentoring on academic achievement of at-risk
youth. Child and Youth Services, 25, 227-242.

Thompson, R., & Littrell,J. M. (1998). Brief counseling
for students with learning disabilities. Professional
School Counseling, 2, 60-67.

Watkins, A. M., & Kurtz, P D. (2001). Using solution-
focused intervention to address African American
male overrepresentation in special education: A case
study. Children & Schoob, 23, 223-234.

W Sean Newsome, PhD, is assistant professor, Jane
Addams College of SodalWork (MC 309), University of
niinois at Chicago, Room 4509, 1040 West Harrison Street
Chicago, IL 60607-7134; e-mail: snewsome@uic.edu. The
research presented is the result of the author’s doctoral
dissertation completed at Ohio State University. The author
acknowledges Drs. Gil Greene, Denise Bronson, and Tom
Gregoirefor their support during the completion of the
project.

Accepted February 25, 2004

Children & Schools VOLUME 27, N U M B E R 2 A P R I L 2005