The 6-Part Story Method:



The 6-Part Story Method:

A validation and reliability study

Kim Dent-Brown

Research Fellow in Dramatherapy

Hull & E Riding Community Health NHS Trust/

University of Hull

kim@dent-brown.co.uk

07904 456031

Acknowledgements:

NHS Executive (Northern & Yorkshire) for funding a 2-year Research Training Fellowship

Professor Mike Wang, Dept of Clinical Psychology, University of Hull

The clinician and patient participants for several hours of each person’s time

The 6-Part Story Method (6PSM)

Idea devised by Alida Gersie, inspired by work of Vladimir Propp, Algirdas Greimas.

Developed in Israel by Mooli Lahad in late 1980s

Participant follows instructions to draw a story in 6 parts, then tell it aloud. Final questions follow to elaborate details

The six parts:

Main character in their setting

Task facing main character

Things that hinder main character

Things that help

Main action, turning point of story

Aftermath, what follows main action

An assumption to test:

“My assumption is that by telling a projected story based on the elements of fairytale or myth, I may be able to see the way the self projects itself in organised reality in order to meet the world.” (Lahad, 1992)

Widely used in UK by Dramatherapists

No studies of validity and reliability

Research questions:

Can some rating scheme be devised for story material?

Can raters agree on story ratings?

Are stories recorded from the same person at different times rated similarly?

Are ratings validated by concurrent measures?

What can be learned from participants’ subjective reactions?

Research method:

Stories taped and transcribed from 49 participants:

24 CMHT clinicians - 24 stories

12 CMHT patients (possible PD) - 22 stories

13 CMHT patients (mainstream) - 21 stories

Most patients produced 2 stories at 1 month interval

Concurrent measures:

SCID-II Structured Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Axis II

CORE-OM Core Outcome Measure

IIP-32 Inventory of Interpersonal Problems

Developing rating scale:

64 statements describing stories devised from theoretical expectations and inspection of early transcripts. Eg:

Themes of abandonment and being left alone by others are prominent.

The story teaches that we always need other people.

Themes of good and evil, right and wrong are important in this story.

Developing rating scale:

Statements rated on 5-point Likert scale by 2 raters for sample of 20 stories

Significant agreement could be reached (mean Gamma = .81, p < .01) on 47 statements

All 67 stories then rated by panel of raters using these 47 statements. Raters blind to story authorship.

Developing rating scale:

47 statements reduced to 26 by checking inter-rater reliability with larger group of less experienced raters (mean Gamma = .61, p < .01)

Results:

Factor analysis of remaining 26 statements revealed three factors, accounting for 57.3% of the variance:

Pessimism/failure

Others seen as helpful

Violence present

Internal consistency:

Inter-rater reliability:

Test-retest stability:

Pessimism/failure scale items:

Validity of P/F scale:

No significant difference in the means from the clinician group and the group of patients without a BPD diagnosis (t =1.01, df = 42, p > .05).

Significant difference between the scores from the group of patients with a BPD diagnosis and the other two groups combined (t = 4.50, df = 59, p ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download