| 000 | 01330cam a2200169 4500500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | 20250121144437.0 | ||
| 041 | _afre | ||
| 042 | _adc | ||
| 100 | 1 | 0 |
_aBullens, Quentin _eauthor |
| 700 | 1 | 0 |
_a D’Amore, Salvatore _eauthor |
| 245 | 0 | 0 | _aLosses and Identity Reconstructions in Single-Parent and Recomposed Families |
| 260 | _c2013. | ||
| 500 | _a37 | ||
| 520 | _aOn the occasion of the third day of the “Research and Evaluation of Systemic Interventions and Therapy” we thought it was important to point out the different tools around which we organize our work and their implications for our clinical practice. In the present paper we will consider grounded theory methodology (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), the Picnic Game (Frascarolo and Favez, 2005), and various scales such the FACES III (Olson et al., 1985) and the family boundary ambiguity scales (Boss and Greenberg, 1984). We introduce this discussion by briefly recalling the main lines of our research, to explain the context that led to the choice of these tools. When possible, a connection will be drawn between the tools presented and their clinical usefulness. | ||
| 786 | 0 | _nThérapie Familiale | 34 | 3 | 2013-09-01 | p. 355-369 | 0250-4952 | |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | _uhttps://shs.cairn.info/journal-therapie-familiale-2013-3-page-355?lang=en&redirect-ssocas=7080 |
| 999 |
_c589456 _d589456 |
||