There are various interactive computer programmes for the administration of the repertory grid, such as PEGASUS (Thomas & Shaw, 1977), FLEXIGRID (Tschudi, 1995), REPGRID (Shaw, 1989) and G-PACK (Bell, 1987). More commonly, however, a structured interview is used involving client-therapist interaction. For this reason, it is important to encourage a relaxed atmosphere where clients can express themselves without feeling judged. Indeed, they should be encouraged to see the exercise as an expression of their personal viewpoints.
Generally, any type of interview involves a degree of fit between the construct systems of two or more people. This interaction reveals interviewers' attitudes and indicates whether a genuine respect for the interviewee's own constructs exists. When carrying out the interview, the investigator must consider the phenomenological slant of the repertory grid method, whose goal is to obtain a clear representation of the interviewee's construction processes by reducing interviewer interference to a minimum.
This chapter describes the administration of a personal others grid, a process including three stages: elicitation of elements, elicitation of constructs, and rating. If elements and constructs are previously provided, then one continues directly to the rating phase. A protocol is used for the administration of the personal others grid, so that the elements, constructs and scores can be recorded. This procedure will be illustrated using Daniel's pre-therapy grid.
The elicitation of elements for a personal others grid involves, as described in the previous chapter, the provision of a list of interpersonal roles as well as one or two self elements. In Daniel's case, an interview was held before the grid was administered. His family tree and data on his past and personal situation were also available. This ensured that the most significant people in Daniel's world would be selected as elements. The list of roles used as elements was: SELF, MOTHER, FATHER, BROTHER, SISTER, SPOUSE, GRANDMA, MALE FRIEND, FEMALE FRIEND, PERSONA NON GRATA ("someone whom you know but do not like") and PREVIOUS THERAPIST.[1] Once the constructs had been elicited, two more elements were included: SELF-BEFORE-THE-CRISIS and IDEAL-SELF. Writing the elements on separate flash cards can be very useful when it comes to presenting them for the elicitation of constructs. The instructions used for the elicitation of elements for the personal others grid are the following:
"Write down on each of these cards the names of the people or roles that I'll describe. For example, write your own name on the first card" (give the respondent a couple of seconds to do so). "On the second card write your mother's name or just 'mom' or whatever you usually call her." Allow time to do so. "Continue in this way for every member of your family included as an element." Then give the following instructions: "Write the name of a friend you know well, your best friend, for example." Allow a few seconds to decide whose name to write. Continue in this way for the rest of the elements.
As the subject is filling out the flash cards, the interviewer can start writing down the column headings in the vertical columns of the protocol sheet. It is advisable to let the interviewee know this with a comment such as:
"As you write down the names on the flashcards, I'll be jotting them down at the head of this sheet of paper."
Whether clients decide to include or omit names of role titles provides valuable information that should not be ignored. Some individuals are only able to generate elements relating to family role titles and may find it extremely difficult to name significant others outside the family context. Such difficulty may suggest interpersonal problems having clinical relevance. Likewise, significant delays or "blocking" in identifying role elements (e.g., for "successful person" or "persona non grata" roles) can provide useful information for later therapeutic exploration.
There are a variety of structured procedures for the elicitation of personal constructs. Kelly, himself, outlined six procedures. Nevertheless, we have decided to simplify matters by reducing these to three procedures, one using triads of elements, another using dyads, and a third using only one element. All consist of asking questions regarding the similarities and/or differences between previously selected elements (two or three depending on the case). The reasons given by the subject as to why these elements are similar or different are the personal constructs. A construct is usually expressed as an adjective (e.g., honest, disagreeable, etc.) or as a short descriptive phrase (e.g., "talks too much" or "not to be trusted"). The use of flash cards on which the elements have been written is very useful for the elicitation of constructs.
A) Elicitation of constructs using triads of elements. This is the original method used by Kelly. It involves the presentation of three elements followed by the question, "How are two of these elements similar, and thereby different from a third element?" and then "How is the third element different from the other two?" The interviewer must decide how many triads are to be presented in this way as well as the order of presentation. Kelly suggested that the triads be presented sequentially by changing only one element at a time. If at least one self element is retained in each presentation, the personal relevance of the elicited constructs is reasonably assured.
B) Elicitation of constructs using dyads of elements. Epting, Schuman and Nickeson (1971) argue that more explicit contrast poles can be obtained using only two elements at a time. This procedure usually involves an initial question such as, "Do you see these people as more similar or different?" This prompt can then be followed by questions of similarity such as, "How are these two elements alike?" or "What characteristics do these two elements share?" Questions referring to differences such as "How are these two elements different?" are also appropriate. The explanation of these differences by the respondent immediately yields a pair of opposites, each relating to an element of the dyad. While asking for a difference between elements may produce a pair of direct opposites (each element is described by a construct pole), the question referring to a similarity requires yet another question to elicit its opposite (e.g., "What would be the opposite of this characteristic?"). This procedure is used to compare various elements so that all can be included.
The dyadic procedure is recommended by Yorke (1985) because it may be more likely to elicit clear opposite poles on the same semantic or hierarchical level. When eliciting constructs using this procedure, we usually start by asking questions regarding similarities and then differences between each pair of elements. Often, interviewees are able to provide more than one similarity or difference construct. Sometimes, however, they struggle to find similarities or differences. When this occurs, the next dyad of elements or question is presented. When a construct is repeated, it is listened to but not jotted down nor is the opposite requested.[2]
In a 13-element grid like the one used in the example, the number of dyads that can be presented is 78. Obviously, not every combination can be presented. A selection must be made, especially considering that each dyad can elicit more than one construct. In group or experimental studies, a random selection of elements is made with each element appearing in approximately the same number of groupings. However, in clinical investigations it is logical that the most relevant elements should have priority. There are no specific instructions to this effect in the literature, so we have adopted the following criteria:
- Assure that each element appears at least once in the dyads presented.
- Always include the SELF element in conjunction with the MOTHER, FATHER, SPOUSE, PERSONA NON GRATA and sibling elements, if appropiate.
- Exclude the more abstract elements such as the IDEAL-SELF from the dyads, although they should be included when rating.
C) Elicitation of constructs using single elements. Also known as monadic elicitation, this way of obtaining constructs is the most similar to an informal conversation. It consists in asking subjects to describe in their own words the "personality" or way of being of each of the elements presented. The inteviewer's task is limited to writing down the constructs as they appear and then asking for the opposite poles.
|
|