The Impact of Supervised Filial Therapy Training on Attitude,Knowledge,and Skills

Abstract

Research in filial therapy has provided strong support for its efficacy in improving parent–child relationships. While studies have extensively examined the impact of filial therapy training on parent and child participants, to date, no study has examined the training experiences of filial therapists. Using a mixed methodological approach, we examined the impact of supervised filial therapy training on graduate counseling students’ play therapy attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Twenty-three students voluntarily participated in the study. We conducted paired-sample t-tests to evaluate the impact of a filial therapy course on students’ scores on the Play Therapy Attitude–Knowledge–Skills Survey. From pretest to posttest, there were statistically significant improvements and a large effect size on students’ scores in the knowledge and skills subscales. To gain a deeper understanding of participants’ experiences and explore their perceptions of the supervised filial training, we also utilized individual interviews. Participants discussed their reactions to leading a filial therapy group and participating in supervision. They also described the impact of the training on their beliefs about parents, children, and the dynamics of parent–child relationships. We discuss limitations and implications of the study.

Keywords

filial therapy graduate training attitudes knowledge skills

Identifying effective treatment options to meet the specific needs of families with young children is a growing issue in the United States (Perry, 2007) and other parts of the world (Wilson & Ryan, 2005). The U.S. government has highlighted the need for research, development, and practice of family-focused treatment options to address the mental health needs of young children (U.S. Public Health Services, 2000). For this reason, teaching counselors in training effective family-based interventions should be a priority for counselor educators and supervisors. Filial therapy is an empirically supported counseling intervention that infuses child-centered play therapy into a family-based approach. This treatment modality focuses on building the parent–child relationship and has the potential to effect change within the family system (Cornett & Bratton, 2014).

Filial therapy offers both play therapists and family therapists a means to incorporate the family system and a variety of family members, especially young children, into the therapeutic process, instead of dividing or excluding members from the therapeutic intervention (Cornett, 2012). Filial therapy is a parent-training model that focuses on the parent–child relationship and the significant role this relationship plays in a child’s emotional well-being and development. Filial therapy has the potential to improve family interactions and increase familial affection and understanding (B. G. Guerney, 1964; L. Guerney, 2000; Landreth & Bratton, 2006; VanFleet, 2005). According to Cornett (2012), filial therapy can also facilitate change in the family as a unit, “within children and parents, between children and parents, and between the relationship of others in the family system” (p. 276).

Filial Therapy

During the 1960s, in an attempt to prevent mental health problems in children, increase parents’ motivation to be helpful and receptive to their child’s therapy, and expand the effectiveness of services offered to children and families, Bernard and Louise Guerney developed filial therapy (B. G. Guerney, 1964). The Guerneys proposed that parents could positively influence their children’s development by learning to respond in a compassionate way and reflect their child’s feelings, behaviors, and needs (L. Guerney, 2000). In the original filial therapy model, parents met weekly in a small therapist-led group to learn child-centered play therapy skills, discuss their experiences, and conduct play sessions with their child; groups continued for several months to over a year (Andronico, Fidler, Guerney, & Guerney, 1967).

In the 1980s, Garry Landreth modified the Guerneys’ filial model and developed a time-limited 10-session format designed to increase parental involvement and decrease financial constraints (Landreth, 2012). Landreth named his filial training model Child–Parent Relationship Therapy (CPRT) to distinguish it from other filial training approaches. Consistent with the Guerneys’ model, CPRT combines a support group format with didactic teaching of child-centered play therapy skills to help parents respond effectively to their child’s emotional and behavioral needs (Landreth & Bratton, 2006).

The role of the therapist in CPRT is to teach and support parents to become therapeutic agents of change in their child’s lives (Landreth & Bratton, 2006). CPRT centers on the view that a secure relationship between parent and child is the healing factor for children’s emotional well-being, and a secure parent–child relationship is essential for healthy growth and development. The CPRT facilitator has a strong belief and trust in the parent and child’s ability to change and engage in new ways; this perspective is consistent with family therapists’ belief in the resourcefulness of the family system and desire for the family to interact in ways that are more meaningful and helpful in their interactions (Cornett, 2012). In CPRT, therapists focus on helping parents see their role in the current relationship problem, remove attention from the child as the sole source of the concern, and regain parental control by creating boundaries and offering children opportunities to develop self-control (Johnson, 1995; Landreth & Bratton, 2006).

CPRT is a well-researched and empirically supported model of treatment with over 40 studies, demonstrating its effectiveness with a variety of mental health issues, settings, and diverse populations (Bratton, Opiola, & Dafoe, 2015). According to Bratton, Landreth, and Lin (2010), the vast majority of CPRT studies showed statistically significant results with a moderate to large effect size for CPRT groups over control groups in decreasing child behavioral problems and stress in the parent–child relationship as well as increasing the parents’ ability to respond in a more empathic manner. Bratton, Ray, Rhine, and Jones (2005) found stronger support for CPRT studies, where caregivers provided special play times compared to professional play therapists providing direct treatment to the child. These meta-analytic findings position CPRT as a viable treatment option for a variety of presenting problems and highlight the importance of effective training and supervision of filial therapists, including both formative and summative evaluation of child-centered play therapy knowledge and skills.

Purpose of the Study

Research in filial therapy has provided strong support for its efficacy in improving parent–child relationships. While studies have extensively investigated the impact of filial therapy training on parent and child participants, to date, no study has examined the training experiences of filial therapists. By exploring the specific educational experiences of filial therapists in training, counselor educators can tailor training protocols to meet the unique needs of filial therapy students.

In the current study, we sought to examine graduate students’ experience and perceptions before and after 15-week supervised filial therapy training. We also investigated the degree to which the training influenced their understanding and proficiency in play therapy. In order to facilitate richer data collection and a deeper understanding of the focus of the study (Powell, Mihalas, Onwuegbuzie, Suldo, & Daley, 2008), we utilized a mixed methodological design. In addition to administering the Play Therapy Attitude–Knowledge–Skills Survey (PTAKSS; S. Kao, personal communication, July 3, 2009), we sought to illuminate the subjective experiences of participants and complement the objective data (Dukes, 1984) through end of semester individual interviews. In an effort to conduct program evaluation (Nastasi, Moore, & Varjas, 2004), during these interviews, we also explored students’ perceptions of the content and structure of the filial therapy course.

Research Questions

In this study, we addressed the following guiding research questions: (1) What is the impact of filial therapy training on student’s play therapy attitude, knowledge, and skills? (2) What are students’ perceptions of the process and outcome of filial therapy training and supervision? (3) What are students’ perceptions of the impact of filial therapy training and supervision on the students, their beliefs about parent–child relationships, and their play therapy knowledge and skills?

Method

Participants

We conducted the current study at a large suburban university in the Southern United States. We invited graduate counseling students enrolled in a 15-week filial therapy course to participate in the research. Prior to enrolling in the filial therapy course, all students completed courses in play therapy, basic counseling skills, advanced counseling skills, and group counseling; all students were concurrently enrolled in counseling practicum or internship.

During the informed consent process, we informed participants that their involvement in the study was voluntary and they could withdraw at any time without any negative impact to their grade or standing in the filial therapy course or counseling program. Twenty-three students chose to participate in the research study. The majority of the respondents were female (n = 21) and had a variety of play therapy training experiences. Eighteen participants were in their last few semesters of the masters counseling program and five students were in their first semester as PhD counseling students (see Table 1 for participant characteristics).

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics.

Demographics/Experience	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	2	8.7
Female	21	91.3
Age
20–29 Years	20	87
30–39 Years	3	13
Play therapy course credits
1–2 Courses	14	60.9
3–4 Courses	4	17.4
5–6 Courses	3	13.0
6+ Courses	2	8.7
Play therapy workshops
None	9	39.1
1–3 Days	11	47.8
4–6 Days	1	4.3
6+ Days	2	8.7
Clinical experience in play therapy
None	4	17.4
Less than 1 year	13	56.5
1–2 Years	5	21.7
3+ Years	1	4.3
Previous work with children
None	3	13.0
School teacher	5	21.7
Child care	7	30.4
Guidance counselor	4	17.4
Other	4	17.4

Instruments

PTAKSS

The PTAKSS (S. Kao, personal communication, July 3, 2009) explores respondents’ beliefs about children as well as self-efficacy related to play therapy knowledge and skills. The 63-item self-administered instrument utilizes a Likert-type scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree) and consists of three subscales. The attitude subscale contains items that reflect the beliefs and interaction patterns trainees should learn in child-centered play therapy training. This 23-item subscale includes statements such as “I enter new relationships with children with confidence and relaxation,” “I am a warm and friendly person to children,” and “I know myself and accept myself as who I am.”

The knowledge subscale contains items reflecting what trainees should know after receiving child-centered play therapy training. This 18-item subscale includes asking respondents to rate their understanding of terms such as play theme, tracking, returning responsibility, therapeutic limit setting, choice giving, play materials, directive play therapy, nondirective play therapy, group play therapy, family play therapy, and play therapy with adults.

The skills subscale demonstrates the degree of trainee confidence in using play therapy skills. This 22-item subscale includes questions such as “how would you rate your ability to critique a play therapy session?” “how would you rate your ability to help children understand themselves in play therapy?” and “how would you rate your ability to reflect children’s feelings in play therapy?”

In their revision of the original PTAKSS, Kao and Chang (2007) reported on the psychometric properties of the revised instrument. An examination of reliability and validity testing showed high internal consistency reliability (α = .95) and good split half reliability (r = .76). Factor analysis also revealed three factors, which accounted for 47.6% of variance of the scale scores.

Researchers have administered the PTAKSS to respondents at various education and training levels. These include undergraduate human service majors (Crane & Brown, 2003), beginning graduate play therapists in training (Homeyer & Rae, 1998; Kao & Landreth, 1997; Lindo, Chung, et al., 2012), school counselors (Kagan & Landreth, 2009), rural mental health counselors (Carnes-Holt & Weatherford, 2013), advanced play therapists in training (Lindo, Meany-Walen, & Sullivan, 2012), and advanced mental health practitioners (Meany-Walen et al., 2013). The current study represents the initial implementation of the PTAKSS with advanced play therapists enrolled in a filial therapy course.

Interview

In addition to administering the PTAKSS to participants before and after the filial therapy training, we conducted semi-structured individual interviews with student participants within 1 week of the final class meeting. Each interview lasted from 45 min to 1 hr in length. During the interviews, we explored students’ perceptions of the process and outcome of filial therapy training and supervision. For example, “What was it like to discuss your filial group progress in individual/triadic/group supervision?” We also examined students’ perceptions of the impact of filial therapy training and supervision on their beliefs about parent–child relationships and their play therapy knowledge and skills. For example, “What did you learn about your beliefs regarding parent/child relationships as a result of this semester’s experiences?”

Research Team

An associate professor (the first author) and three doctoral counseling students, one of whom served as a research assistant, comprised the research team. All research team members have training and experience in filial therapy interventions, instruction, and supervision. The associate professor served as filial therapy course instructor but was otherwise not involved in informed consent, data collection, or analysis. The research assistant conducted recruitment and informed consent procedures, administered pre- and posttests, conducted interviews, transcribed, and deidentified the collected data prior to analysis. All three doctoral students served as the coding team members.

Supervised Filial Therapy Training

Learning objectives and course assignments

The learning objectives of the 15-week filial therapy course include (a) understanding the historical and development rationale for filial therapy, (b) understanding and applying the Landreth 10-session model of filial therapy, (c) applying guidelines for group formation, including selecting parents appropriate for filial therapy, (d) developing strategies for teaching parents basic child-centered play therapy skills, (e) facilitating group process in filial therapy, and (f) synthesizing research and evaluation in filial therapy.

In addition to reflection papers, a class presentation, and weekly readings, students enrolled in the filial therapy course are required to conduct two 30-min filial play sessions with their own child or a child they are well acquainted with. The primary goal of this assignment is to increase students’ appreciation for the dynamics of parent–child play sessions, identify the key differences between filial sessions and therapist-led play sessions, and increase empathy for parents participating in student-led filial groups.

Ten-week filial therapy practicum

During the semester, each student enrolled in the filial therapy course is required to colead 10 filial therapy training sessions with a small group of five to seven parents, conduct parent interviews, administer pre- and posttesting, keep clinical progress notes and a file on each parent, and provide a follow-up training session if needed. Students video record all filial therapy training sessions and actively participate in weekly triadic or group supervision with an advanced doctoral student.

Findings

In the current study, we employed a mixed methodological approach to examine the impact of supervised filial therapy training on student’s play therapy attitude, knowledge, and skills. Before and after the 15-week course, we administered the PTAKSS (S. Kao, personal communication, July 3, 2009) to the 23 research participants. In an attempt to balance objective data (Dukes, 1984) and gain a deeper understanding of participants’ perspectives (Powell et al., 2008), we also conducted an individual interview with each participant at the end of the 15-week semester.

Statistical Results

We conducted a paired sample t-test to evaluate the impact of the 15-week filial therapy course on students’ scores on the play therapy attitude, knowledge, and skills total score and three subscales, attitude, knowledge, and skills. There was a statistically significant increase in total scores before (M = 4.139, SD = .292) and after (M = 4.347, SD = .343) the filial therapy course, t(22) = −3.602, p = .002. The η² statistic (.371) indicated a large effect size. The difference of the attitude subscale scores before (M = 4.408, SD = .277) and after (M = 4.422, SD = .411) the filial therapy course was not statistically significant, t(22) = −.176, p = .862. Next there was a statistically significant difference on the before (M = 3.913, SD = .405) and after (M = 4.196, SD = .379) scores on the knowledge subscale of the PTAKSS, t(22) = −3.839, p = .001. The η² statistic (.401) indicated a large effect size. Finally, the difference in the skills subscale scores before (M = 4.041, SD = .323) and after (M = 4.393, SD = .374) the filial therapy course was statistically significant, t(22) = −5.345, p < .0005. The η² statistic (.565) indicated a large effect size. In conclusion, there were statistically significant differences and large effect sizes on students’ scores on the total score and two subscale scores, knowledge and skills, after a 15-week filial therapy course (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Pre- and Posttest Scores on the Revised Play Therapy Attitude–Knowledge–Skills Survey.

Subscale	Pretest		Posttest
Subscale	M	SD	M	SD
Attitude	4.41	.28	4.42	.41
Knowledge	3.91	.41	4.20	.38
Skills	4.04	.32	4.39	.37

Note. n = 23.

Emerging Themes

Using an adaptation of a classic data analysis strategy (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014), we employed an inductive–deductive approach (Varjas, Nastasi, Moore, & Jayasena, 2005). The initial stages in qualitative data analysis typically involve an inductive process often referred to as open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). This procedure facilitates the emergence of patterns and themes from the data. The latter stages of the coding process are deductive in nature and involve testing and confirming themes developed during the inductive stages (Patton, 2002). Table 3 provides details of the data analysis process.

Table 3.

Steps in Qualitative Data Analysis.

Steps	Procedures
Taking notes	Three coders independently analyzed a subset of the data (six interviews). This involved writing notes in the margins of the transcripts. As we poured over the data, we noted our initial reactions to the interview material.
Summarizing notes	During weekly coding meetings, we discussed our reactions to the interview material, compared and contrasted margin notes, highlighted shared perspectives and discrepant viewpoints, and developed a summary sheet.
Playing with words	We generated metaphors based on the summary sheet. This stage involved developing phrases that represented our interpretation of the participants’ interview responses. Creswell (2013) considered this a preliminary stage in code development.
Making comparisons	We compared and contrasted the key phrases (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014) and grouped them into categories. This stage facilitated reduction of the data, as we combined similar phrases and merged overlapping categories.
Developing preliminary codes	Creswell (2013) noted the importance of reducing the data in order to eliminate redundancy. Therefore, we continued to merge categories and reformulate category headings. From this, we developed preliminary themes based on the data (Miles et al., 2014).
Initial coding	We established intercoder agreement (Marques & McCall, 2005) by independently applying the preliminary coding manual to a subset of the data (six interviews). During weekly coding meetings, we discussed discrepancies and points of agreement, adjusted the preliminary coding manual, and reapplied it to the data subset. We continued this process until we reached a mean agreement of 86–90% (Bakeman & Gottman, 1986) and finalized the coding manual.
Final coding	We applied the final coding manual to each of the 23 interviews. To ensure continued intercoder agreement, all three coders analyzed the same portion (30%) of the data. During weekly coding meetings, we continued to discuss discrepancies and coder drift (Marques & McCall, 2005). Intercoder agreement ranged from 90% to 95% throughout the final coding period.

We conducted analysis of the 23 end of semester interviews and developed five major categories based on the data: (a) reaction to filial therapy group, (b) personal dimension, (c) professional development, (d) reaction to supervision, and (e) views about filial therapy course.

Reaction to filial therapy group

We defined reaction to filial therapy group as students’ reflections on recruitment, cofacilitation, group management, and interactions with participating parents. During the end of semester interviews, 91% of the participants (n = 21) described their reactions to the process of running a filial therapy group.

One student recounted the anxiety she experienced during the recruitment process. “Getting everyone together, like finding the parents [for the group] was extremely stressful.” Another student noted her difficulties with managing group attendance and ensuring that parents conducted their weekly home play sessions. “[Once] we got the group set [up], one of our biggest difficulties was the consistency of the parents.”

During the interviews, several students commented on the importance of effective cofacilitation. One student in particular reflected on the significance of teaching the didactic components of the CPRT model while also attending to the dynamics of the group interactions. “I think my partner and I did a good job with balancing the content with the group process.” Several students also expressed surprise at how much they learned from their interactions with parents. This was particularly the case for those students who did not identify as parents themselves.

I learned a lot from the parents [in the group]. It just kind of gave me a broader understanding of some of the things they deal with on a daily basis; helping me kind of get into their world better.

Personal dimension

We coded personal dimension when students referred to their personal relationships and experiences outside of the counseling setting. During the individual interviews, 39% of the respondents (n = 9) described connections between their personal lives and the supervised filial therapy training experience. One student commented “even in day-to-day life when I am interacting with my cousins. I just do some limit setting or choice giving, so it has become more natural to use that type of language and stuff.” A few students recounted their experiences as parents. One student in particular noted that he enrolled in the filial therapy course because of his own experience as a parent in a filial group.

[When I had my children] my primary goal was to be a better dad. You know I thought I would have [just] used [play therapy] in my [counseling] practice but more than anything, I needed help in my [own] parenting skills. So I [participated in a filial group] and started doing [special play times] with my [own] kids, [and] my relationship with them really started to change.

Professional development

We defined professional development as students’ awareness of their increased understanding of the CPRT principles and skills as well as improvements in their overall counseling skills and clinical judgment. During the end of semester interviews, the majority of the participants (n = 21) commented on ways in which the filial therapy supervised training experience contributed to their professional growth. Although many of the students noted that the filial therapy course facilitated additional certification and specialized training, several students expressed surprise at how much the course contributed to their overall clinical skill development and confidence in working with children and families. One student stated that she developed an “increasing comfort with kids and improved in [counseling] skills.” Another student said, “I felt more competent in interacting with parents.”

Reaction to supervision

We coded reaction to supervision when students referred to their thoughts and feelings associated with participating in triadic or group supervision. During the individual interviews, all of the respondents (n = 23) described their reactions to the supervision component of the 10-week filial therapy practicum. Several students commented on the support received from the clinical supervisor as well as other triadic/group supervision members. One student noted, “Talking with [my supervisor] was really helpful. She gave really good feedback and I think she has really good group skills herself. Having [my coleader] there [also] helped with getting feedback.” Another student said that “[supervision] was awesome [and] it was nice to be able to talk about it with people who are grounded in play therapy.”

Views about filial therapy course

We defined views about filial therapy course as students’ reflections on the overall course as well as its impact on students’ beliefs about children, parents, and the dynamics of the parent–child relationship. During the end of semester interviews, 100% of the participants (n = 23) described learning experiences related to the course content. One student described her appreciation for being able to use the specialized training to complement her work with parents in her private practice.

I have always done the monthly parent consultation that we have been trained to do, but when I started doing [the] filial [group during this class] the relationship the parent had with the child dramatically improved. I would have never been able to accomplish that in a parent consultation. So that has given me a lot of faith in the process.

Another student developed an awareness of the significance of mutual acceptance and understanding in the parent–child relationship.

I learned a lot of problems could be fixed if parent and child alike take the time to understand each other and build the relationship. I learned that whenever parents actually take the time and just enjoy their child and accept them for who they are, children feel more relaxed and less anxious; they can feel that acceptance from their parents.

Finally, a third student expressed her gratitude for the impact that the supervised filial therapy training experience had on her overall abilities as a play therapist. “I honestly think I am a better play therapist because of the filial therapy class.”

Discussion

CPRT is a well-researched and empirically supported filial therapy model with over 40 studies, demonstrating its effectiveness with a wide range of client populations (Bratton et al., 2015). This positions CPRT as a viable treatment option for a variety of presenting problems and highlights the importance of effective training and supervision of filial therapists.

While studies have extensively examined the impact of filial therapy training on parent and child participants, the current study is the first to examine the training experiences of filial therapists.

Using a mixed methodological design, we administered the PTAKSS (S. Kao, personal communication, July 3, 2009) as well as individual interviews. According to statistical analyses of PTAKSS scores, students showed a statistically significant increase (p = .001) on play therapy knowledge and skills (p < .0005) with large effect sizes for both variables. Because participating students had already taken at least one previous course in play therapy, the results indicate that the filial therapy course has the potential to enhance students’ existing play therapy training. Previous research supports that play therapy students increase play therapy knowledge, skills, and attitudes as a result of being enrolled in a play therapy practicum (Lindo et al., 2012). The filial therapy course, like practicum, requires students to practice their play therapy skills in addition to leading a filial therapy group; the increase in participants’ play therapy knowledge and skills could be due to the required practice sessions. In contrast with the research by Lindo et al. (2012), the results of the current study showed that although there was an increase in students’ play therapy attitudes, the increase was not statistically significant. The filial therapy course focuses on providing students with knowledge and skills regarding working with parents as opposed to focusing directly on students’ play therapy skills. This change in focus could be the reason for not having a statistically significant increase in students’ attitudes toward child-centered beliefs and interaction patterns. In fact, the current study is the first to utilize the PTAKSS in a filial course as opposed to administering it to participants who worked directly with children.

Emerging themes from analysis of the individual interviews revealed that the students perceived the filial therapy course as contributing to their overall professional development and clinical skills especially related to working with children and families. This theme is congruent with quantitative findings that support students increased play therapy skills and knowledge. Responses from the interviews also demonstrated that students increased in insight and awareness of group facilitation and the supervisory process. This is important because it suggests that the filial therapy course facilitated vicarious learning regarding group counseling and supervision skills. This is expected given the focus that the filial therapy class curriculum has on advancing students’ skills in leading a group process and supervising parents’ play skills. Similarly, one of the emerging themes of this study found that students perceived filial therapy training as being impactful on their personal relationships with significant others and family members. It is notable that students who did not have children commented more on how much they learned from parents, which seems to indicate that the filial therapy course could potentially enhance parental empathy for play therapists who are not parents themselves. This is important given how closely play therapists may have to work with caregivers even when conducting interventions directly with children (e.g., offering parent consultations).

Limitations

An initial limitation of the current study is the small number of participants. Due to the mixed methodological nature of the study, we determined a smaller number of participants would provide us the means to illuminate the students’ experiences. Although we were able to gather in-depth descriptions of participants’ perceptions, we acknowledge the limitation of the quantitative analysis due to the small sample size. Although qualitative data analysis revealed positive outcomes related to acceptability and perceived effectiveness of the supervised filial therapy training experience, the potential for researcher bias represents a possible limitation as well. The first author’s dual role as researcher and university instructor may have negatively affected data collection and analysis procedures. Therefore, in order to minimize researcher bias, the first author did not participate in recruitment, informed consent, data collection, or analysis and was not privy to the data until all reports and transcriptions had been deidentified. We also facilitated trustworthiness through audit trail, and the use of multiple coders to establish validity and reliability of emerging themes (Patton, 2002). Further, we ensured that the research assistant was the only coder directly connected to the filial therapy course, thereby limiting the perception of forced participation.

Conclusion

The urgency to find counseling interventions that can effectively meet the socioemotional needs of families with young children is becoming more prevalent (Perry, 2007; Wilson & Ryan, 2005). In response, it is important to incorporate evidence-based family-focused interventions into the curriculum of mental health training courses. Over 40 studies support the effectiveness of CPRT with a variety of mental health issues and diverse populations (Bratton, Landreth, & Lin, 2010; Bratton et al., 2015), making it a viable intervention to teach to future mental health professionals who seek to work with families with young children. The current mixed methodological study is the first to examine the impact of a filial therapy graduate-level course on (1) counseling students’ play therapy skills, knowledge, and attitudes and (2) counseling students’ perceptions of the impact of the course. In general, the findings support that students who participated in the filial therapy course gained a more in-depth understanding of working with parents, increased their play therapy knowledge and skills, and enhanced their generalization of skills in their personal life. These results are encouraging in supporting the positive impact that a filial therapy course can have on future counselors seeking to work with young children and their caregivers. Although this is an important first step in researching the effectiveness of a filial therapy course, future research can include follow-up studies to examine the extent to which past filial therapy students continue to utilize learned skills as well as explore their perception of the usefulness of the course on their work with families of young children.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Andronico

M. P.

Fidler

Guerney

Jr Guerney

L. F.

(1967). The combination of didactic and dynamic elements in filial therapy. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 17, 10–17.

Bakeman

Gottman

J. M.

(1986). Observing interactions: An introduction to sequential analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bratton

S. C.

Landreth

G. L.

Lin

Y. D.

(2010). Child–parent relationship therapy: A review of controlled-outcome research. In Baggerly

J. N.

Ray

D. C.

Bratton

S. C.

(Eds.), Child-centered play therapy research: The evidence base for effective practice (pp. 267–293). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Bratton

S. C.

Opiola

Dafoe

(2015). Child–parent relationship therapy: A 10-session filial therapy model. In Crenshaw

D. A.

Stewart

A. L.

(Eds.), Play therapy: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice (pp. 129–140). New York, NY: Guilford.

Bratton

S. C.

Ray

D. C.

Rhine

Jones

L. D.

(2005). The efficacy of play therapy with children: A meta-analytic review of treatment outcomes. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36, 376–390.

Carnes-Holt

Weatherford

(2013). Intensive play therapy for rural mental health counsellors. The Family Journal, 21, 80–86.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cornett

(2012). A filial therapy model through a family therapy lens: See the possibilities. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 20, 274–282. doi:10.1177/1066480712449128

Cornett

Bratton

S. C.

(2014). Examining the impact of child parent relationship therapy (CPRT) on family functioning. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 40, 302–318. doi:10.1111/jmft.12014

10.

Crane

J. M.

Brown

C. J.

(2003). Effectiveness of teaching play therapy attitudes and skills to undergraduate human services majors. International Journal of Play Therapy, 12, 49–65.

11.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Dukes

(1984). Phenomenological methodology in the human sciences. Journal of Religion and Health, 23, 197–203. doi:10.1007/BF00990785

13.

Guerney

B. G.

Jr . (1964). Filial therapy: Description and rationale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 303–310.

14.

Guerney

(2000). Filial therapy into the 21st century. International Journal of Play Therapy, 92, 1–17.

15.

Homeyer

L. E.

Rae

(1998). Impact of semester length on play therapy training. International Journal of Play Therapy, 7, 37–49.

16.

Johnson

(1995). Filial therapy: A bridge between individual child therapy and family therapy. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 6, 55–70.

17.

Kagan

Landreth

(2009). Short-term child-centered play therapy with Israeli school counsellors and teachers. International Journal of Play Therapy, 18, 207–216.

18.

Kao

Chang

(2007). A report on revising the Chinese version of play therapist attitude-knowledge-skill survey. Psychological Testing, 54, 121–146.

19.

Kao

Landreth

G. L.

(1997). The effect of child-centered play therapy training on trainees. International Journal of Play Therapy, 6, 1–20.

20.

Landreth

G. L.

(2012). Play therapy: The art of the relationship (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

21.

Landreth

Bratton

(2006). Child parent relationship therapy (CPRT): A 10 session filial therapy model. New York, NY: Routledge.

22.

Lindo

N. A.

Chung

C. F.

Carlson

Sullivan

Akay

Meany-Walen

(2012). The impact of child centered play therapy training on attitude, knowledge and skills. International Journal of Play Therapy, 21, 149–166.

23.

Lindo

N. A.

Meany-Walen

Sullivan

(2012). The impact of supervised clinical experience on play therapy attitude, knowledge and skills. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2, 94–103.

24.

Marques

J. F.

McCall

(2005). The application of interrater reliability as a solidification instrument in a phenomenological study. The Qualitative Report, 3, 439–462.

25.

Meany-Walen

Lindo

N. A.

Turley

Chung

C. F.

Akay

Cheng

Y.J.

Chen

S. Y.

(2013). Evaluating the impact of intensive supervision on child-centered play therapy training. British Journal of Play Therapy, 9, 16–25.

26.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Nastasi

B. K.

Moore

R. B.

Varjas

K. M.

(2004). School-based mental health services: Creating comprehensive and culturally specific programs. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

28.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Perry

(2007). Under fire: Reflection and metaphor in narrative therapy. In Burns

(Ed.), Healing with stories (pp. 117–127). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

30.

Powell

Mihalas

Onwuegbuzie

Suldo

Daley

(2008). Mixed methods research in school psychology: A mixed methods investigation of trends in the literature. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 291–309. doi:10.1002/pits.20296

31.

U.S. Public Health Services. (2000). Report of the surgeon general’s conference on children’s mental health: A national action agenda. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

32.

VanFleet

(2005). Filial therapy: Strengthening parent–child relationships through play (2nd ed.). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

33.

Varjas

Nastasi

B. K.

Moore

R. B.

Jayasena

(2005). Using ethnographic methods for development of culture-specific interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 241–258. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.04.006

34.

Wilson

Ryan

(2005). Play therapy: A non-directive approach for children and adolescents (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Elsevier.