This article was downloaded by: [University of Utah]

On: 22 November 2014, At: 23:40

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Psychotherapy Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tpsr20

Developments in task analysis: New methods to study

change
a b b
Antonio Pascual-Leone , Leslie S. Greenberg & Juan Pascual-Leone
a
Department of Psychology , University of Windsor , Winsor, Ontario
b
Department of Psychology , York University , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Published online: 22 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: Antonio Pascual-Leone , Leslie S. Greenberg & Juan Pascual-Leone (2009) Developments in task analysis:
New methods to study change, Psychotherapy Research, 19:4-5, 527-542, DOI: 10.1080/10503300902897797

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10503300902897797

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Psychotherapy Research, July
September 2009; 19(4
5): 527
542

PSYCHOTHERAPY RESEARCH METHODS

Developments in task analysis: New methods to study change

ANTONIO PASCUAL-LEONE1, LESLIE S. GREENBERG2, & JUAN PASCUAL-LEONE2

1
Department of Psychology, University of Windsor, Winsor, Ontario & 2Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada
(Received 16 July 2008; revised 12 March 2009; accepted 16 March 2009)
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014

Abstract
This article provides a conceptual overview of task analysis, which is an inherently multimethod approach. The authors
present the method as a step-by-step illustrative template for researchers who seek to develop qualitatively rich models of
change and quantitative measures that correspond to these change models. The current article provides an epistemological
framework to develop both descriptive and causal models of change. It also offers a comparison with other methods of
inquiry that are exclusively qualitative in nature and do not explicitly highlight the use of theory in model development. In
addition, the authors describe recent developments in task analysis for dynamic modeling. In tandem with this, they
articulate advances in the relationship between task analytic construct development and measurement development.

Keywords: task analysis; process; qualitative; models; measurement; change patterns

Future directions for studying the process of change
are often vaguely discussed among clinical research-
ers as requiring a blending of qualitative and quanti-
tative methods. However, the method by which this
might be achieved often remains unelaborated
(Greenberg & Pinsof, 1986; Rennie & Toukmanian,
1992). Such an investigative approach involves a
qualitative study of underlying structures, which then
is somehow transposed into quantitative analyses
(J. Pascual-Leone, 1978). Thus, in a very real sense,
studying the process of change as it unfolds in-session
requires explanations that bridge descriptions of
what happened with some deeper understanding of
why and how. Although there are several approaches
to task analysis (see introduction to Greenberg,
2007), the formal method we outline here prescribes
how to blend methodological approaches and has
been developed to study complex processes of
change. In this article, we outline recent develop-
ments in task analysis, addressing four conceptual
and technical issues not discussed in Greenberg’s
(2007) methodological guide.
First, by presenting our extended method in the
context of a step-by-step overview, we hope to
provide an illustrative template for researchers
who wish to blend qualitative and quantitative
research methods within a program of research using
a lock-step fashion. As indicated, this blending of
methods is something that is often recommended in
the literature but for which there is little available
instruction. Task analysis is an inherently multi-
method approach, and although it has been success-
fully used within single studies (e.g., Greenberg,
1984, 2007; Joyce, Duncan, & Piper, 1995; Safran
& Muran, 2003), this may have led to some confusion
because it ultimately describes and requires a pro-
gram of research. The programmatic nature of this
approach may be one reason why task analysis can, at
first, appear daunting. Even so, it is consistent with
Lakatos’s (1970) notion that science progresses
through the development of research programs rather
than by the falsification of single studies.
Second, we articulate task analysis as a method to
develop both descriptive models as well as to infer
causal models of change. Studying the process of
change in this way requires an epistemological
framework, which we describe for the first time
with respect to task analysis as it is conducted in

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Antonio Pascual-Leone, Department of Psychology, University of Windsor,
401 Sunset Avenue, Winsor, Ontario N9B 3P4, Canada

ISSN 1050-3307 print/ISSN 1468-4381 online # 2009 Society for Psychotherapy Research
DOI: 10.1080/10503300902897797
 528 A. Pascual-Leone et al.
psychotherapy research. Moreover, we also offer a
few points of comparison with other methods of
inquiry that are exclusively qualitative in nature and
do not explicitly highlight the use of theory in model
development. Although comparisons are not the
focus of our article, they help orient the reader
with respect to the purpose and scope of task
analysis.
Third, we describe the recent development of a
new kind of study in task analysis, one that relates
complex sequences, or patterns of process, to out-
come. This innovation is more sophisticated than
past task analytic validation studies, which have
simply related the presence of process components
to outcome. Seeking empirical support for an
explicitly sequential pattern of process is a new
approach to studying change and is a development
that highlights the potential of task analysis as a
method for the causal modeling of change.
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014
Fourth, in tandem with advancements in model
development are advancements in the task analytic
approach to measurement. Thus, we articulate the
relationship between construct development and
measurement development in a task analytic frame-
work and discuss the way in which categorical
measures of subjective experience can be trans-
formed into ordinal measures. The subsequent
generation of ordinal (rather than simply categorical)
data allows researchers to further explore hypotheses
about the patterns of process that help to explain
therapeutic change.
What is Task Analysis?
Task analysis in psychotherapy is an investigative
strategy for illuminating steps in the successful
completion of a therapeutic task (e.g., a cognitive,
affective, or physical problem situation) and provid-
ing a detailed understanding of a participant’s
performance in completing a complex change task.
Although many change tasks are not openly recog-
nized as such, the goals to be obtained in a given
moment are ultimately what define the task as it is
being conducted. Furthermore, the research partici-
pants in a therapeutic task to be analyzed could be a
client, a therapist, or some relational dyad of people,
depending on the identified task for study. Even so,
for the purposes of simplicity, we refer to client and
client tasks as the focus of study. Whatever the case
may be, the main strategy of task analysis is the
decomposition of tasks into performance compo-
nents, which are ordered in time (Greenberg, 2007).
In essence, task analysis is a method of inquiry
designed to address the question, ‘‘How did the
client do that?’’ The investigator must be able to
identify and be familiar with the task at hand, a
specific therapeutic change process. Moreover, the
investigator must have sufficient expertise to be able
to recognize good client performance (in terms
of therapy goals) when it occurs. Even so, how
the performance is produced or which critical
components were coordinated to produce good
task performance are, at least initially, unknown
(often to both client and investigator).
Underlying Assumptions of Task Analysis
When we discuss how therapeutic change occurs, a
number of epistemological levels of discourse are
implicated. The most obvious is that we may
‘‘observe’’ either overt or covert signs of change,
which reflect a client’s subjective experience.
Although it is essential for researchers to accurately
describe these subjective experiences as components
of change using descriptive models, we posit that it is
ultimately the dynamic and sequential coordination
of descriptive components that brings about the
processes of change itself.
Furthermore, some paths in a descriptive model of
subjective states/meanings/actions are optimal for
achieving some particular kind of change while
others are not. This sets the initial parameters for a
task. An account of the optimal flow between states
(model components) toward task completion repre-
sents a causal model. Such a model should recognize
those dynamic and sequential pattern(s) that are
invariant across types of situations and individuals,
reflecting the nature of change at a higher level of
abstraction. Thus, causal models capture those
dynamic patterns of change (based on a descriptive
model) that seem to hold true for clients in general.
Notice that recognizing characteristic patterns of
change actually implies some organizing process, one
that is hidden from direct observation and yet is
apparent using a much broader scope of analysis
(i.e., considering an array of situations, individuals).
Representations of invariants in goal-directed per-
formances are incipient causal models because they
speak to tacit characteristics of the client, as an
organism, productively engaging the internal/exter-
nal world. These ‘‘client characteristics’’ (i.e., orga-
nismic processes) are ultimately the true causal
mechanisms for the individual expression of internal
experience and of outward behavior.
Thus, we posit that personal change does not
occur as a result of isolated states or units of
information but rather through an interplay between
hidden (causal) properties and manifest (descriptive)
experiences. This means that to study the process of
change, a method should describe those subjective
client experiences relevant to some goal and, further-
more, begin to articulate the principles by which

those client experiences unfold. A phenomenological
study of experience and personal meaning, which
describes a range of client’s subjective ‘‘states,’’ can
be thought of as a subjective analysis. One way of
developing a qualitative study of this kind is to
consider the goal-oriented purpose of selected
subjective states and to examine the emerging
‘‘pattern of states,’’ which seems to predict a process
of change toward some goal: In our approach to task
analysis, we call this is a dynamic process analysis.
Finally, although one cannot directly observe the
inherent qualities or ‘‘traits’’ of the participant,
loosely defined, one comes to see how these char-
acteristics are implied through the emerging pattern
of states. To model these hidden properties (e.g.,
traits) that are only indirectly observable is to make
hypotheses about the participant as an organism.
This is organismic process analysis. Notice that sub-
jective refers to the personal experience a client is
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014
implicitly or explicitly aware of, whereas organismic
refers to the inherent properties and attributes of the
client (e.g., individual differences in personality-
social characteristics, affective or cognitive processing
styles). Thus, organismic process analysis examines the
hidden resistances and affordances that a client
brings to bear as a problem-solving organism.
Phases in Task Analysis
In relating these questions to the process of change,
all task analysis allows one to do is to (a) describe
client experiences relevant to a task, (b) look for
natural sequences in productive client process, (c)
empirically predict these natural sequences, and (d)
eventually infer which organismic processes may
permit such natural sequences. This occurs over
several phases of inquiry. In task analysis, the first
study of a change process is the discovery phase,
which uses qualitative methods that blend observa-
tion and theory (i.e., synthesize by combining
qualitative observations and their plausible theore-
tical meaning) to develop a specific model and an
accompanying measure of clients’ therapeutic
change. The second study, the validation phase,
uses traditional methods of hypothesis testing to
measure and test the newly created model on a
separate sample. While validating the model, this
phase of research also helps to validate a rich
categorical measure of change. A typical project
using task analysis is finished when both the dis-
covery and validation phases of research are com-
plete (Greenberg, 1984, 2007). Recent innovations
by Pascual-Leone (2005, 2009) have indicated that a
task analytic model can be further extended to test
new hypotheses in a dynamic modeling phase. Thus,
the third study in a research program of this kind
Task analysis 529
uses evidence from the first two studies to support
development of an ordinal scale representing the
model of change. This scale can then be used as the
point of departure for a new generation of research
hypotheses about the process of change.
A Unique Approach
Model building in task analysis is a form of intensive
analysis distinguishable from other qualitative inqui-
ries in at least four important ways: (a) purpose, (b)
use of theory, (c) the nature of data collection, and
(d) measurement development in the interest of
predictive modeling. The first three are the conse-
quence of a different epistemological perspective.
First, the purpose of task analysis is the dynamic
modeling of a change task; concretely, this means
discerning the minimum number of distinct and
essential steps in a task’s resolution. Thus, the
objective in this method is to identify only the most
necessary and efficient ‘‘steps’’ toward the intended
goals (e.g., self-growth in emotional adaptation).
Ultimately, task analysis aims to represent a goal-
directed performance (which participants have or
might produce) as efficiently as possible. Thus, the
discovery phase of task analysis focuses on modeling
the process rather than the hermeneutic analyses of
meaning in a client’s experience per se.
Second, task analysis begins with a declared set
of theoretical assumptions and then deliberately
uses these to interpret and inform observations;
this is referred to as rational modeling. Thus, task
analysis dialectically makes use of both top-down
(rational) and bottom-up (empirical) modeling. This
use of theory as both an observational tool and as a
repository for observations bears some resemblance
to Stiles’s (2007) method of theory-building case
studies, although task analysis is not concerned
with general case theory but rather with theories
specifically about task resolution.
Third, task analysis also differs in the nature of its
data collection, partly as a result of the two points
already indicated. The grounded theory form of
qualitative research, when applied to psychological
topics such as psychotherapy, primarily entails the
grounding of understanding of a phenomenon in
reports of how it was subjectively experienced by the
client. Accordingly, although the user of grounded
theory interprets these reports when conceptualizing
categories of experience, such interpretations are
based on what participants themselves are aware of
and able and willing to address (Rennie, personal
communication, January, 2009). In contrast, given its
different purpose, task analysis also relies on the
systematic observation of a client’s performance in a
task, often done in the spirit of human ethology. Thus,
 530 A. Pascual-Leone et al.
data used for task analysis may include both aspects of
a change process: those that may be covert and are
within the client’s awareness as well as the directly
observed aspects outside the client’s awareness.
Fourth, models in task analysis are developed with
the understanding that they must be amenable to
measurement and be empirically predictive. Thus,
the creation of qualitative categories is contingent
on their ultimately being codified into quantifiable
terms. Moreover, measurement criteria are con-
structed in parallel with the development of con-
structs (categories), such that identifying criteria
actually impact the way in which constructs are
conceptualized. Thus, both model and measure
emerge from a dynamic process of continued refine-
ment. This emphasis on model measurement and
predictive validity is unique to task analysis.
A distinct contribution of the task analytic discov-
ery method is that it deliberately makes use of existing
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014
theoretical frameworks to tentatively explain qualita-
tive results of actual or possible goal-driven behavior.
It does this by instantiating theory in these data as a
way of sharpening the investigator’s perception of
observed phenomena. This enhances researchers’
ability to interpret qualitative findings. In contrast,
an approach that minimizes the influence of existing
theory is more or less bound to a single context
because it is contingent on concrete examples taken
from a given situation. As a result, qualitative
approaches in which theory is either bracketed or
simply held in abeyance do not allow for theoretical
postulates (rational modeling) that are empirically
inferred as functional invariants across types of
situations (i.e., reliable interrelated patterns). Yet
such empirically grounded theoretical postulates,
sometimes called rationalist facts (J. Pascual-Leone &
Sparkman, 1980), could empirically ground the
synthesis of meaning across substantially different
situations. One illustration of this type of rationalist
fact, which is abstracted from a pattern across
concrete situations, is a psychodynamic formulation
(A. Pascual-Leone & Greenberg, 2006; of course, we
hope it is clear that the yields from this type of
meaning abstraction are not necessarily psychody-
namic in nature). Task analysis recognizes and
capitalizes on the fact that observations can rarely (if
ever) be theory free (Kuhn, 1996). Thus, by encoura-
ging the use of existing theories of change when
examining performances, the method allows investi-
gators to observe sequential relationships both across
time and across different situations. Without using
existing theory as part of the framework, the observa-
tion of patterns of experience across different situa-
tions is not possible.
The inconvenience of task analysis is that models
from the discovery phase, which are infused with
rationalist facts (patterns across observations), must
be treated as tentative and need to be independently
tested. Thus, the qualitative investigation is not
consolidated until a validation study is done, usually
in the form of a second, quantitative study. It stands
to reason that two phases of investigation, each
requiring a different data set, make for a lengthier
inquiry than a single qualitative inquiry; still, we
believe that multimethod approaches such as task
analysis can yield richer theoretical insights into
actual processes by which change occurs. Even so,
selecting between qualitative methods should be
done based on the research question at hand.
When inquiring into the meaning of a phenomenon,
grounded theory may be the method of choice.
However, for questions related to how a particular
phenomenon unfolds in time and what causal
mechanisms might be implicated in that process,
task analysis is the method of choice.
Discovery Phase
This section describes the discovery phase of task
analysis, which involves construction of a rationally
based model and development of a related empirically
based model through systematic observation (Green-
berg, 1984, 2007). The researcher observes and
discovers using top-down (rational) and bottom-up
(empirical) approaches concurrently. The two-
pronged dialectical process of observation and theo-
rizing emerges as part of a very dynamic process of
model construction. Steps of the discovery-oriented
phase are represented schematically in Figure 1 and
described in the subsections that follow. Initial con-
jectures act as null hypotheses (see Figure 1, top
right), which are often based on the literature and on
the investigators’ knowledge of the phenomenon. The
discovery-oriented process subsequently involves two
distinct efforts: the theory-based rational model (see
Figure 1, top left) and a corresponding, observation-
based empirical model (Figure 1, middle), followed
by the integration of these two.
Step 1: Subjective Analysis of Phenomena
(Rational Modeling)
Inquiry begins with a subjective analysis of some
phenomena. This step makes use of existing theory
as a way of guiding the observation of raw data at the
most molar level, whether in video-recordings, ses-
sion transcripts, interviews, live observations, and so
on. In the aim of doing more than descriptive
research, the phenomena to be examined should be
regarded as a dynamic process in time that captures
some goal-directed behavior.
 Task analysis 531
RATIONAL MODEL

Prior to model
Rational analysis building,
is based on HYPOTHESES
theoretical are generated based
postulates about on the literature,
the present task inquiry, and
environment and anecdotal
participant observation.
behaviours.

EMPIRICAL MODEL: Based on 3 good & 3 poor cases

Case 1 Case 2 ...Case 6

Observe Refine Compare Remove

theoretically
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014

components & contrast non-essential

postulated components components
components

Add observed
components

SYNTHESIS:
Rational-Empirical Model

Next major phase of Findings:

research: • Model of
VALIDATION change.
PHASE, • Measure of
New, a hypothesis testing process.
larger follow-up
data set investigation of the
synthesized model.

Figure 1. The procedures of task analyses from discovery to verification.

How to choose a change task. The first issue in
conducting this type of research is to identify some
implicit or explicit therapeutic task. The investigator
must identify some phenomenon that (a) seems
therapeutically important, (b) relates to change,
and (c) would benefit from being ‘‘mapped out.’’
Moreover, (d) the task cannot be too global and
must involve observable performance (e.g., using
audio, video, a series of subjective reports across
time). Notice that the observations of change used
for model building may be direct or indirect and they
do not necessarily have to pertain to a client’s
subjective experience, although they often do.
Furthermore, defining a task, as such, has other
demands for the researcher: (e) to concretely identify
the start and end points of the task. Thus, a
researcher’s conceptualization of the task must ad-
dress various specific questions: What signals the
initiation of a task? How might one know when a task
has been successfully concluded? In doing this, the
more loosely circumscribed a task, the more it will be
global and appear in the form of some continuous
process (as, e.g., practicing a skill). Finally, (f) tasks
must also be explicitly formulated as occurring within
certain task environments or situations (e.g., in a
kind of therapy, relational context), whether this is
broadly or narrowly defined.
Although interventions proposed by therapists are
obvious examples of task environments and implied
tasks, it is not necessary that the task chosen for
analysis be characterized or marked by an already
existing intervention. In fact, a task could consist of
 532 A. Pascual-Leone et al.
spontaneously occurring (goal-directed) events out-
side of the client’s or therapist’s explicit awareness.
Because complex ‘‘internal’’ tasks have cues that are
contextualized by a participant’s past experience, the
nature of a task is often, in a literal sense, within
the mind of the beholder. For example, resolving a
conflict is a task that is explicitly recognized by the
observing researcher and either implicitly or expli-
citly so by the experiencing client. Thus, the client’s
therapist, or even the chosen approach to treatment,
does not have to recognize the client’s task in
question. Examples of change tasks include the
resolution of interpersonal grievances, resolving
self-criticism, overcoming an identified emotional
block, repairing an alliance rupture, or even the
cognitive
emotional processing that follows an iden-
tified cue (where a cue could be, e.g., momentary
forgetting, emotional dysregulation, psychodynamic
defense, disengagement, a dysfunctional belief).
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014
Notice that many of these ‘‘tasks’’ could eventually
be examined across treatments, although it is ad-
visable to restrict the initial inquiry within a single
general approach.
A. Pascual-Leone and Greenberg (2007) deli-
neated and studied an emotional processing task,
and this will serve as an illustration of task selection.
The ‘‘naturally occurring’’ event of transforming/
resolving emotional distress was identified as begin-
ning with a problem state of global distress (i.e., the
task marker) and ending with a state of ‘‘resolution’’
or transformed emotional distress (i.e., the end
marker). The task marker of global distress was
formally defined as (a) an aversive state of suffering,
which is (b) high in expressive arousal, (c) has little or
no substantive meaning, (d) does not entail a clear
and specific referent, and (e) lacks both agency and
a clear sense of direction. Thus, states of global
distress (e.g., hopelessness, helplessness, resignation,
self-pity, undifferentiated complaint), which are high
in expressive arousal but low in meaningfulness and
are in response to personally sensitive themes or life
events, were identified as markers for the task of
emotional processing. Similarly, characteristics of
end-marker states representing advanced processing
states also were defined to help ‘‘bookend’’ the task to
be studied. This was defined as any of the following:
(a) new feelings being freshly experienced in the
moment, expressed clearly in an integrative and
affirmative fashion; (b) productive meaning making
associated with the experience; (c) positive self-
evaluation (either implicit or explicit); (d) an agentic
stance with an adaptive action tendency; and (e)
identifying clear and specific objects of emotional
concern.
Thus, global distress and the advanced process-
ing states*or, better said, unskilled versus skilled
emotional processing*serve as the beginning and
end, start and finish, of this event. Following this
identification of a task’s boundaries, the basic
objective is the creation of a model of change that
bridges the start and finish with specified intermedi-
ate steps. Because the goal of this method is to define
client change processes, tasks are best mapped out
from the perspective of the client. For this reason,
the task analytic approach temporarily puts the
therapist in the conceptual background so as to
focus on optimal client process (Greenberg, 1991,
2007).
Modeling states versus state changes. Although the
discovery phase of task analysis was developed
independently from grounded theory, in some sense,
it is like a grounded theory analysis done against
time, where the object of study represents some goal-
directed behavior. Once the preliminary rational
analysis is done, our discovery phase will share an
initial moment with the model-building procedures
of grounded theory (in the next step). However, the
current step of rational modeling, which is based on
theory and expert insight, anticipates the empirical
modeling against time. For this reason, some meth-
odological contrasts will be useful here.
In grounded theory method, ‘‘meaning’’ is taken
as the goal of investigation, in that the analysis has an
emphasis on the structure of meaning as such
(Rennie, 2000) rather than the moment-by-moment
process of meaning construction and its variation
in time. It follows then that, despite any associa-
tive relations that can be captured in a dendrogram
(a tree diagram illustrating the arrangement of
clusters), temporal discontinuities exist from one
category state to the other. Of course, researchers
using grounded theory know that meanings evolve in
time, but their method, nonetheless, does not easily
allow for the expression of this understanding, and
indeed this is not its purpose. The models produced
by grounded theory are insightful and clinically
useful descriptive models, which explain behavior
by elaborating complex latent meanings. In contrast,
the aim of task analysis is to capture the temporally
unfolding development of meaning in action and to
produce predictive models of change.
Of course, qualitative methods such as grounded
theory method can also be used to explore processes
of change, although they more easily explore the
meanings of a change experience than the moment-
by-moment change itself. However, this difference
may ultimately be a matter of emphasis. The in-
tended emphasis in using grounded theory is to
provide a faithful description of subjective experi-
ences (i.e., a subjective analysis). By contrast, task
analysis emphasizes the natural sequences of a
change event (i.e., a dynamic process analysis of
 Task analysis 533

patterns in subjective experience). This is because
the purpose of a task analysis is ultimately to
pursue the causal determinants of these sequences
through the articulation of change principles.
It should be clear by now that grounded theory
and our approach to task analysis in psychotherapy
research share a moment of subjective analysis
and modeling. Soon after, of course, the different
objectives of each of these methods become appar-
ent, as a task analytic program of research moves to
another phase of inquiry. So task analysis begins with
a description of subjective states, followed by an
identification of natural sequences of change, and
aims to eventually identify the organismic properties
that allow for these natural sequences.
Thus, once the rational development of categories
is underway in task analysis, those categories are
sequenced. Concretely, sequencing is often repre-
sented by arrows between the boxes in a flow chart
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014
Rational modeling: Making and managing
conjectures. A process of change study requires larger
rational inferences than those provided in more
grounded descriptive models of subjective meaning.
This is because models of change are intended to
reflect observed patterns and predict future perfor-
mance. Thus, the rational modeling step in task
analysis gives license to farther-reaching critical
speculations. This is done for the purpose of
explaining transitions between components and
may even refer to underlying causal mechanisms
that would help explain the process of change.
Consistent with Lakatos’s (1970) notion of scientific
progress, it is also done with the understanding that
the model will later be validated (i.e., by subsequent
empirical observations and again during the valida-
tion phase).
As a counterbalance to rational modeling, the
empirical analysis that follows is an opportunity to

(e.g., see Figure 2, which is explained later). Arrows
represent the transformation (or evolution) of mean-
ing in action from one moment to the next. More-
over, the arrows represent the client’s shifting of
attentional resources (e.g., shifting topics, focusing
on, disembedding). So the model denotes psycho-
genetic, causal processes by which clients move
forward. In short, if grounded theory is a method
that captures the deeper meaning of a process, then
task analysis captures*or better yet ‘‘tracks’’*the
change and implications of a process.
cull essential model components, rejecting any
excesses or vestige components of the rational model
that have not proven useful in describing the closely
observed change process, and to add any newly
discovered components. In a very real sense, the
researcher adopts opposing investigative attitudes
for rational versus empirical modeling steps. During
the rational analysis, the researcher assumes the role
of theoretician, allowing for more liberal conjectures
rooted in sound theory and inspired by expert
insight. However, during the empirical analysis, the

Study 1: Study 3:
Discovery Phase Dynamic Modeling Phase

Start
Global
1 Global Distress
Distress
Degree of Transformation Scale (DTS)

Rejecting Fear / 2 Rejecting Anger

Anger Shame 3 Fear/Shame

4 Negative Evaluation
Negative 5 Need
Need
Evaluation
6 Relief
Emotional Relief
Assertive Anger Grief / 7 Grief/Hurt
or Self-Soothing Hurt
8 Self-soothing
Assertive Anger
Acceptance
& Agency 9 Acceptance & Agency

Figure 2. A task analytically derived model: The emotional processing of distress. Note: In Study 1 (discovery phase), a model was deve-
loped to represent a sequential pattern of change (at left; modified from A. Pascual-Leone & Greenberg, 2007). Later, in Study 3 (dynamic
modeling phase), categories (emotion states) in the model are assigned ordinal values (based or findings from Studies 1 and 2; discovery and
verification phases). Thus, Study 3 begins with ‘‘flattening’’ the model into a 9-point ordinal Degree of Transformation Scale (right).
Copyright # 2007 by the American Psychological Association. Adapted with permission.1
 534 A. Pascual-Leone et al.
researcher adopts a new attitude of skepticism when
applying the initial rational model to the data. Thus,
the researcher takes on a new aim of searching for
differences between the initial model and the data in
an effort to refute conjectures and refine that model.
This change in tact helps to offset biases that may be
based in the early rational model.
Step 2: Phenomena Are Organized into
Coherent Categories (Empirical Modeling)
As we have begun to describe, the phenomena are
eventually empirically modeled through some abduc-
tive method that synthesizes key/essential facets of the
observed event into coherent categories. Abduction is
a form of inference in which one imaginatively creates
hypotheses that provide plausible explanations
(sometimes causal explanations) for a given set of
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014
findings. In essence, when one is confronted with
findings that cannot yet be explained, abduction is
the process by which one works backward, inventing
possible explanations (i.e., hypotheses), which might
subsequently be supported (Haig, 2008; Pierce,
1931
1958). Thus, as categories are abductively
created from observations, they are constantly com-
pared with facets of the initial rational model. The
result is an emerging rational-empirical model,
one that is reiteratively examined for supporting
evidence or redundancies and is eventually appraised
for saturation (completeness) and stability. A number
of these strategies for qualitative analysis are very
similar to those described by Rennie (2000) in his
approach to grounded theory.
When used in task analysis, this step involves
identifying and sorting many observed task perfor-
mances, each one semantically or pragmatically
distinct and idiosyncratically different from the
others. The researcher’s struggle in this process,
aided by the use of a theoretical lens, is to sort and to
find invariant patterns (i.e., patterns recurrent across
types of situations) in the essential task performances
that contribute to task completion. In the end, the
qualitative approach that is necessary here is to
identify and elaborate essential aspects of the phe-
nomena’s teleological structure until such a model
reaches stability. Thus, as the data are empirically
modeled, they inform the rational model such that a
synthesis of rational and empirical models (see Figure
1, bottom right) is created. This is done by adding,
modifying, or deleting rationally based model com-
ponents in accordance with empirical observations
and by similarly accommodating empirically ob-
served steps within the model.
In the emotional processing study of A. Pascual-
Leone and Greenberg (2007), the rational model was
based on prior clinical theory that introduced the
notion of primary versus secondary emotions, adap-
tive versus maladaptive emotions, and the relation-
ships between these (Greenberg & Paivio, 1997).
Using this interpretive framework, six video-recorded
cases, each beginning with a start marker of global
distress, were selected and intensively examined.
Three cases were believed to demonstrate the pro-
ductive transformation of global distress (successful
task completion), whereas the other three distress
events remained unresolved (Figure 1, middle). This
strategy of using three versus three prototypic case
examples is often recommended as a manageable
(and minimal) number of cases for study when
developing the empirical model (Greenberg, 2007).
In any case, as the researchers tracked each client’s
process moment by moment, observations of the task
performance (e.g., thoughts, feelings, behaviors,
expressions, meanings) were chunked together into
meaning units. The most important level of abstrac-
tion for these units is that which represents different
experiential states (cf. Greenberg, 2007).
In this fashion, empirical model building should
aim at describing similarities in process among three
good (i.e., successful) examples and at the same time
contrast them with the three poor (unsuccessful)
examples. Notice that including poor cases as points
of contrast to good cases is essential in task analysis,
which is a method to look for optimal elements and
patterns in subjective experience rather than describ-
ing the diversity of subjective experiences. For
example, unproductive sequences that, nonetheless,
may be commonplace are not represented in a task
analytic model (unless they also served as initial
performance components in the good cases). More-
over, if a researcher were only to examine good
cases, it would be impossible to know which model
components were unique to good cases (i.e., opti-
mal), as opposed to those that might also have been
found among poor cases.
Observe and describe: A dynamic and reiterative
process. In this discovery-oriented phase, an investi-
gator constructs the description of a phenomenon.
Construction is understood here in the dialectical
sense of formulating a coherent representation or
understanding that is consistent with a given phe-
nomenon and embodies its resistances (the reality
constraints it imposes on the subject) and affordances
(the possibilities of action or representation that
the phenomenon in question offers; see Greenberg,
1984; Greenberg & Pascual-Leone, 2001; J. Pascual-
Leone, 1991). Thus, the investigator collects exam-
ples of ill-defined events that are recognized as
relevantly contrasted (i.e., three vs. three contrasting
cases). From this, the spiraling method of task
analytic discovery begins with an initial fuzzy con-
cept. At first, this event/concept could be defined in

any number of ways, which would result in different
conceptualizations of the phenomenon. However,
once the investigator finds an initial way of (a)
suitably defining/measuring the concept (e.g., a given
step toward the transformation of distress), the
examples are, in turn, reexamined to ensure that
they properly express relevant aspect of the
data across instances. This allows investigator to
subsequently (b) refine the fuzzy concept, which
further clarifies the phenomenon via a repeated
dialectical process of (re)conceptualization and ob-
servation. As the conceptualization of the phenom-
enon is increasingly refined, criteria for measurement
are developed (Greenberg, 1984, 2007 ). This can be
viewed as constructive measurement, where the
phenomenon and its measurement are simulta-
neously being coconstructed (‘‘discovered’’) and the
phenomenon itself is increasingly defined by its
measurement.
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014
Although there will be large individual differences
regarding associations and personal resources, some
of these emotional/meaning pathways become reliable
patterns, invariant across different data instances. So,
describing common processes of change entails cap-
turing these invariant patterns, which in fact, are
facets of an underlying causal model. Thus, modeling
of this kind answers questions such as, ‘‘What do the
three good cases have in common in the way they
unfold? How are they different from poor cases?’’ For
example, the sequence secondary hopelessness (i.e.,
global distress) followed by shame, followed by
empowering anger constitutes a good, important
change sequence in depression. To model these canons
of change is one major objective of psychotherapy
process research.
In the example of research on transforming global
distress, the synthesis of rational and empirical
models has produced a richly descriptive state-
transition model of key processes. In their first study,
A. Pascual-Leone and Greenberg (2007) describe
clients who enter a state of global distress (i.e., highly
aroused distress with low levels of idiosyncratic
meaning making) as part of initially working through
reactive and depressogenic emotions that are undif-
ferentiated and poorly processed. For the purposes of
illustration, this model is presented in Figure 2 (left).
Following the global distress marker, fear and shame
represent subsequent, second-level states in the
model of processing. These are characterized by
deep, enduring, painful yet familiar states that are
highly idiosyncratic and often anchored in generic
autobiographical narratives. Clients at a comparable
level of processing alternatively enter into a state of
rejecting anger, for which the reactive action ten-
dency is either to angrily create distance from, or
destroy, the source of distress. Further on, at the third
Task analysis 535
level of processing (see Figure 2, middle), articulation
of a core negative self-evaluation is contrasted to an
existential need: This tension serves as a pivotal
change step that elicits more adaptive emotional
reactions and occasionally produces a sense of relief.
Following this is a fourth level of more advanced and
adaptive states in emotional processing (see Figure 2,
lower part). In it, on one hand, clients often
enter a state of grief/hurt, in which they are able to
acknowledge personal losses without complaint or
self-pity. On the other hand, clients often become
mobilized through assertive anger, in which they
proactively affirm healthy entitlement to experiences
of competence, worth, or connection with others.
Similarly, clients may enter a state of self-soothing as
a way of directly attending to their existential
needs rather than through explicit assertion. Clients
in grief/hurt can move to assertive anger or self-
soothing, but they may just as easily move back again
into grief/hurt; Eventually, a synthesis of these
advanced emotional states leads to the most resolved
state of acceptance and personal agency (Figure 2,
bottom).
This example of a task analytic model captures
descriptive phenomenological facets involved in the
change process, which are the result of a subjective
analysis. However, the general pattern of subjective
experiences is also represented, and this representa-
tion suggests certain principles of change. Moreover,
the model refers to the directionality of (health-
producing) optimal sequences and points to tension
between facets of subjective experience, tension that
seems to propel the client through the change
process. These dynamic states of the client ‘‘as
organism’’ suggest causal features in the model (see
A. Pascual-Leone, 2005).
In the end, through the reiterative process of
identifying and progressively articulating observa-
tions, the discovery phase of research yields two
findings: first, a model of change; second, a catego-
rical measure that helps operationalize critical as-
pects of that model using specified criteria. In this
way, for example, A. Pascual-Leone and Greenberg’s
(2007) study also produced a lengthy document, the
Classification of Affective-Meaning States (CAMS),
which provided criteria for each process step in the
model. The Appendix offers an overview of each step
addressed in the discovery phase and outlines the
goals for the phases of research to follow.
Step 3: Qualitative Categories Are Quantified
(Measurement)
After what amounts to a liberalized phenomenolo-
gical analysis (i.e., the rational/empirical model-
building process) all potentially relevant categories
 536 A. Pascual-Leone et al.
are quantified. This is where task analysis moves
beyond qualitative research as it is most often
practiced; qualitative categories must ultimately be
codified into quantifiable terms. However, the new
quantitative relations must preserve the relevant
qualitative relations. Interobserver reliability and
consensual classifications are two approaches for
this that have been used in psychotherapy research.
Psychometric scale versus model measurement.
Rather than using more generic psychometric coding
systems, coding in task analysis is developed speci-
fically to measure relevant-task constructs. There are
two chief reasons for this: The first is that measure-
ment in task analysis must be highly context specific.
In contrast, generic scales often index single vari-
ables (e.g., depth of experiencing, emotional arousal,
client cognitive progress, self-disclosure, strength of
alliance) in order to be reliable and valid. However,
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014
although simple psychometric scales allow one to
measure progress on one or more dimensions,
usually on ordinal or interval scales, the inherent
assumption is that such measurements represent
qualitatively comparable changes that do not each
require elaborate contextualization. Model measure-
ment, on the other hand, presupposes that a
participant’s performance in complex tasks can
only be understood through the interpretive lens of
a theoretical model. Thus, model measurement is
the qualitative measurement of participants’ pro-
gress within the contextual framework of a model
that can be empirically related to change.
A classic example that speaks to the importance of
model measurement is when observing developmen-
tal performance on Piagetian conservation tasks.
Given these context-sensitive tasks, children demon-
strate choppy development, developmental décalage,
in acquiring abilities that would otherwise appear as
pertaining to a homogeneous area of competence.
From the perspective of psychometric scale mea-
surement, these choppy, U-shaped patterns of devel-
opment represent a transitionary regression or lapse
in measured ability. However, when the aberrant
performance is considered in the context of a model
of change/development, such fluctuations in perfor-
mance are anticipated by the model (see J. Pascual-
Leone & Johnson, 2005). Similarly, Stiles (2006) has
described a ‘‘sawtoothed’’ pattern of client change
that is consistent with his context-sensitive and
theoretically informed model of successful therapy
as an assimilative process. Moreover, aberrations
may actually reflect key change events. For example,
in working through complex grief, clients often go
through a stage of anger before they are able to fully
experience sadness and mourn. Similarly, an alliance
rupture may serve as a paradoxical step on the path
toward greater interpersonal intimacy and therapeu-
tic change. In short, successful psychotherapy is a
complex process in which the intrapsychic context
changes, and this change in context is ill represented
using standard psychometric scales, which often
oversimplify the process of change.
The second reason why task analysis develops
customized measures is that developing categorical
measures actually helps to operationalize dynamic
intrarelational aspects of the model. Standard psy-
chometric scales reflect increases in quantity on a
single dimension (e.g., ‘‘What is the degree of A in
the client’s performance?’’). Model measurement,
however, relies on categorical measures, which make
qualitative distinctions between different sets of
affective-cognitive performance features (e.g., ‘‘Is
the client doing A, B, or C?’’). This form of
measurement promotes the identification of qualita-
tive patterns across time and forms the basis for the
construction of a model of change. A task analytically
derived measure organizes observed categories and
their relationships to one another (e.g., A and B are in
opposition, are alternatives, or are conditions of one
another). Model measurement also relates categories
across time (e.g., A precedes B). This organization of
measurable model categories provides an ordered set
(i.e., a ‘‘continuum’’) of cognitive-affective categories
(or structures). A continuum such as this gives a
much richer description of performance than any
single quantitative dimension.
Thus, measurement is relevant to the discovery
phase of task analysis in that it is a product; but also
in that the development of measurement criteria
itself is an integral part of the method’s process.
Obviously, this procedural significance of measure-
ment would not be possible using an already
available, generic psychometric measure. Although
measurement development is part and parcel of the
task analytic method, this development of qualitative
findings could be similar to extensions of other
qualitative approaches. Levitt and Frankel (2004),
for example, began with findings from a grounded
theory analysis of in-therapy silences and then used
those findings as coding criteria for observation.
Thus, other qualitative approaches may also provide
the means for a rich categorical measure.
Figure 2 shows measurable model components
that concretely illustrate complex notions of primary
adaptive, maladaptive, and secondary emotions
(Greenberg, 2002) as they appeared in therapy.
Such constructs are highly context sensitive and
would not have been measurable using generic
psychometric scales. Moreover, early renditions of
the model identified anger, sadness, and self-soothing
as each having important (albeit highly complex)
roles in the change process. However, as specific
criteria were being articulated for the accompanying

measure (i.e., the CAMS), this influenced how the
described states were functionally understood in their
interaction. Thus, the process of constructing mea-
surement criteria in parallel with a model of change
serves to identify a suitable dynamic relational
network among model components. Unlike a stan-
dard psychometric scale, a categorical measure can
describe qualitatively different self-organizations,
and when used in conjunction with a model of
change, it can capture nonlinear relationships among
uniquely identified model components.
When developing measurement criteria, descrip-
tors of each state (i.e., each model component)
could make use of qualitative and quantitative (cut-
off) criteria. Moreover, coding criteria may be drawn
from original work by the researcher, inspired by
existing psychometric measures, or may come from
combining or dismantling existing measures. In the
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014
CAMS, for instance, coding criteria for each cate-
gory entailed an assemblage of descriptors about
subjective meaning, nonverbal behavior, vocal qual-
ity, and so on (see A. Pascual-Leone & Greenberg,
2005). To accomplish this, new categorical measures
in task analysis often assimilate concepts and specific
observational criteria from a wide range of process
measures, ‘‘using them for parts’’ and reconstituting
them for a customized purpose. This approach
permits one to capitalize on new observational
insights, as well as existing research, to produce a
measure that highlights structural patterns of change
(Rice & Greenberg, 1984) rather than simple
degrees of change.
The Validation Phase
Step 4: Quantitative Analyses on Identified
Structures of the Model
Quantitative analyses are done on those qualitative
structures (model components) that were first iden-
tified through the model-building process. Given a
suitably practical classification system, the researcher
is now in a position to do quantitative inquiries on a
larger and relatively independent data set. This
research step is used to verify earlier qualitative
findings about process and demonstrate their rela-
tionship to outcome. This has been referred to as the
validation phase of a task analysis (Greenberg, 2007).
Notice that confirmatory empirical controls are built
into the task analytic program of research: Although
the synthesized model embodies a number of theore-
tical and rationally based findings, these cannot be at
the expense of their empirical grounding because
now, in the verification phase, the model must show
predictive validity.
Task analysis 537
Confirming process and relating it to outcome. The
second major phase of a task analytic research
program is represented at the bottom left of
Figure 1. Given that the model is theory laden and
interpretive (albeit with support from multiple case
analyses), it must be tested. Thus, the validation
phase is the second part of a task analysis. In this
phase, the qualitative model already developed in the
discovery phase is tested by applying empirical
criteria to a new, larger sample of cases. This phase
of research establishes predictive and external valid-
ity of the synthesized model using in-session exam-
ples that were not part of the original model
building. In other words, the validation phase must
both validate the components of the model and
relate the described process (and patterns) of change
to outcome.
To this end, a larger selection of available cases
must be reviewed for the identified task marker.
Then, using criteria that are independent from the
model measure, this larger sample must be sorted
into those who attained productive in-session end
states and those who did not (i.e., good vs. poor
event outcomes). It is advisable for researchers to
have some hand in ensuring that both types of
outcomes are represented in this newly collected
sample, so that a contrast between subgroups will be
possible. As a case in point, in their second study A.
Pascual-Leone and Greenberg (2007) collected 34
video examples of clients in global distress. They
then used ‘‘outside’’ indices of task outcome (i.e., the
Experiencing Scale and clinical judges) to sort these
cases into two subgroups.
Next, independent observers, who are blind to
both the tentative model and the event outcomes,
use the model measure to identify components/states
represented in the model. For A. Pascual-Leone and
Greenberg (2007), this meant that blind observers
rated clients’ emotional states using the CAMS (i.e.,
the categorical model measure). The resultant data
set must allow researchers to (a) establish interrater
reliability of the model measure, (b) show that good
versus poor event outcomes could be distinguished
statistically using the presence or absence of different
model components, and (c) use statistical analyses to
demonstrate that for good treatment outcomes key
states (e.g., of emotion, meaning, behavior) are likely
to emerge in a sequential pattern described by the
model.
It is worth highlighting here that this last aim*
that is, seeking empirical support for an explicitly
sequential pattern of process*is a new methodolo-
gical development in task analysis. This development
highlights the potential of task analysis as a method
for the causal modeling of change. Overall, such
findings provide validation for a process of change
 538 A. Pascual-Leone et al.
model in its relevance to positive therapeutic effects
and in its sequential structure. Findings of this kind
also validate the relevant model measure (e.g., the
CAMS) that reflects the modeled process. Task
analytic studies have traditionally stopped here after
the validation of discovery-oriented findings.
In a different approach to the quantitative valida-
tion of qualitative findings, Levitt and Frankel’s
(2004) nominal measure (based on grounded theory
findings) of different kinds of client in-therapy
silences was applied to an independent sample and
related to outcome (Frankel, Levitt, Murray, Green-
berg, & Angus, 2006). This method of validation
was useful in demonstrating the relevance of cer-
tain productive silences to good overall treatment
outcome and the reliability of a set of observable
criteria. However, as discussed earlier, grounded
theory models entail discontinuous categories of
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014
meaning, and so the categories/codes in the model
of client silences need not (and cannot) be validated
with respect to their sequential order. Although this
is a moot point regarding validation, it does highlight
the difference in scope and purpose of grounded
theory models compared with task analytic models
of subjective experience. The former provides a
comprehensive understanding of a subjective phe-
nomenon, one that may be inclusive of change but
will not be as focused on it. In contrast, the purpose
of the latter (task analysis) is to focus on a specific
change process. This more delineated focus of task
analysis is in the aim of developing a theory of
sequential process, one that may allow causal me-
chanisms of subjective experience to become more
apparent through observed patterns of change.
In the validation phase of our task analytic
example, the CAMS measure was used to demon-
strate that for productive in-session events eight of
the emotion categories are likely to emerge in
sequentially ordered patterns of at least four phases
(A. Pascual-Leone & Greenberg, 2007). As we shall
see, this finding will provide an empirical rationale
for the next phase of research to convert the model
measure (e.g., CAMS) from a nominal into an
ordinal scale.
Dynamic Modeling Phase
Step 5: New Quantitative Analyses to Explore
Sequential Structures
Until this point in a research program, the model
consisted of a set of structures and had developed in
tandem with a categorical measure, which, in turn,
has been used to verify the model empirically. How-
ever, when a sequentially ordered model of process
(one with ordinally fixed categories) is empirically
verified, this gives legitimacy to an associated measure
that is ordinal rather than simply categorical. So,
based on the verification offered by quantitative
findings and supported by a theory of change, a
categorical measure can be transposed onto an ordinal
quantitative measure. In this way, one can use the new
ordinal measure (ordered set of categories) for other
studies that examine new, more complex, patterns
across time.
Thus, once categories are quantified and shown to
be generalizable beyond the initial handful of cases
that were used in the discovery phase, this new
generation of hypotheses and quantitative analyses
can extend the applicability of the model and
measure. Moreover, this new set of more theoretically
refined hypotheses are ones that were not initially
available to either purely qualitative or quantitative
inquiries alone: Qualitative inquiry was limited in the
breadth of scope it could encompass, whereas quan-
titative inquiry was limited in the complexity or
richness of measurement it could allow. The dynamic
modeling phase organizes model components into an
ordered set (a ‘‘continuum’’) of structures, which
gives an opportunity to further explore ordered
patterns that seem to be invariant within a given
change process. Specific hypotheses might address,
for example, complex temporal micropatterns within
a session, subtle yet systematic macropatterns across
treatment, idiosyncratic patterns related to individual
differences, or patterns of model processes across
treatment approaches. This methodological step (not
represented in Figure 1) is a new contribution beyond
the task analytic method typically presented by
Greenberg (1984, 2007) and used to date in clinical
psychology.
Extending the use of model measures. To illustrate
how model measures can be developed and used for
the study of dynamic patterns among qualitative
states, we return to the program of research on
transforming global distress. A. Pascual-Leone
(2005, 2009) predicted quantifiable dynamic pat-
terns within a qualitative model, and this is, to our
knowledge, the only known example of this metho-
dological approach in psychotherapy research. Qua-
litative and theoretical models of emotion-focused
therapy (EFT) provided support for situating
CAMS codes onto an ordinal scale (i.e., a ‘‘con-
tinuum’’ of structures) of emotional transformation.
So, in the dynamic modeling phase (A. Pascual-
Leone, 2009), emotion codes of the CAMS were
transposed onto a 9-point ordinal scale. This was
done by taking categorical coding (i.e., emotion
codes in the CAMS; Figure 2, left) and assigning
ordinal ratings to them depending on their position
in the sequence, which was hypothesized in the
discovery phase and subsequently validated. Notice

that the measure itself was not substantially changed
in doing this, except for the fact that categories were
now understood as indexing progress in an organis-
mic process of change. Of course, criteria for
identifying model components in the ‘‘new’’ measure
remained the same, and the number of categories/
components in the measure again remained largely
unchanged. In short, the only significant change to
the instrument was the addition of hierarchically
ordered values assigned to each emotion state. As a
result, each state now had a relative position
(validated in the previous phase) as a step on the
path toward resolution (i.e., emotional transforma-
tion). This theory upgrade permits codes to be
understood as expressing an ordinal measure:
the Degree of Transformation Scale (DTS; see
Figure 2, right).
Thus, the complex nonlinear model of emotional
processing was ‘‘flattened’’ into a string of categories
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014
paired to ordinal numbers: Global distress, the least
resolved state, is represented by 1 and is followed by
progressively more processed states, such that fear/
shame 2, rejecting anger 3, negative evaluation 
4, need 5, relief6, grief/hurt7, assertive an-
ger 8, self-soothing 8, and the most resolved state
of acceptance and agency 9. That the DTS nu-
merically conveys model ratings allows analyses in
the new phase of research to exploit the ordinal
properties of the model measure. This data-sensitive
ordering, which tracks progress in the clients’
microdevelopment, reflects a continuum of cogni-
tive-affective process moments, moments that can be
investigated through a new generation of hypotheses.
Some of these new hypotheses, however, may not
have been conceivable during the original model-
building phase (e.g., hypotheses regarding micro- or
macrosequential patterns).
Another example of the quantification of qualita-
tive model-based findings can be found in Stiles’s
Assimilation of Problematic Experiences Scale
(APES), which is an ordinal scale of the type being
described here. The APES provides an ordered
continuum of qualitative structures (Stiles, 2006)
that have been derived mainly from theory-building
case studies (a kind of rational-empirical method
that has an affinity to task analysis). As such, the
APES effectively allows for detailed tracking of client
process in time. However, assessing assimilation
levels cannot be based on a single moment of
observed performance, demanding instead a detailed
understanding of a case in its entirety.
Testing new hypotheses. Returning to the task
analytic method, once one has upgraded to an
ordinal model measure, new hypotheses and ana-
lyses may address at least two sorts of issues. First,
an ordinal model measure allows one to do detailed
Task analysis 539
quantitative analyses such as the statistical modeling
of dynamic, nonlinear patterns of change according
to the specified model. For example, using the DTS
(i.e., an ordinal rendition of the model measure)
A. Pascual-Leone (2009) was able to formulate
hypotheses about productive client performances as
occurring through a sequential (albeit nonlinear and
cyclical) pattern progressing forward and then
dropping backward to earlier levels of processing
(i.e., a ‘‘sawtoothed’’ pattern, as also described by
Stiles, 2006). Based on a sample of 34 cases (one
session per client), results of univariate and boot-
strapping analyses showed that effective emotional
processing was simultaneously associated with an
overall steady improvement according to both the
model (as measured by DTS) and the increased
emotional range of clients. The study was also able
to raise questions about (and track) the dynamic role
of microrelapses (i.e., momentary collapses or re-
gressions) that occur within a session and the
relationship of this clinical phenomenon to progress.
In the end, the data were rich enough to support
these new hypotheses (Figure 3).
Second, an ordinal model measure also allows one
to study a given task as it is progressively engaged
across multiple treatment sessions. Although task
analysis is initially designed to model exemplar
performances based on observations in a circum-
scribed set of events, the quantitative (in this case,
ordinal) measure provides a means to track the same
detailed process using a longer perspective (e.g., the
entire course of a treatment). With this sort of
methodology, many less-than-ideal processes of
change that are believed to be reiterative and cumu-
lative can now be examined. For example, using four
case studies, A. Pascual-Leone (2005) examined the
entire course of each treatment (12
14 sessions) for
markers of global distress and rated relevant emotion
events on the DTS. For each case, these data across
sessions were then subjected to hierarchical linear
modeling (sessions nested within a given course of
treatment). The purpose of these analyses was to
capture patterns of change relevant to the emotional
processing model, which might only occur across
treatment sessions (i.e., the gradual development of
emotional resilience). The series of case analyses
provided evidence for treatmentwise patterns by
which clients develop emotionally in psychotherapy.
It is important to notice that micro- and macro-
patterns such as those referred to previously (i.e., A.
Pascual-Leone, 2005, 2009) must be theoretically
‘‘invented,’’ using a rational process to go beyond
straight qualitative findings, before they can be
quantitatively ‘‘discovered’’ (J. Pascual-Leone &
Sparkman, 1980). This is to say that hypotheses in
the dynamic modeling phase often cannot be explored
 540 A. Pascual-Leone et al.

Degree of Transformation Scale (DTS)

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64

Time (30 second intervals)

…Durations of “collapses”
4.12 min 3.75 min 0.94 min

Figure 3. Using an upgraded measure to test new hypotheses: plotting the Degree of Transformation Scale against time. Note: In Study 3
(dynamic modeling phase), microtemporal patterns were examined. This plot shows codes of emotional improvements and collapses for a
typical good outcome. One of the new hypotheses tested in this way (bottom) was about the changing duration of momentary emotional
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014

collapse in a good outcome case. Figure modified from A. Pascual-Leone (2009). Copyright # 2009 by the American Psychological
Association. Adapted with permission.1

or even concretely articulated during the initial Next, this model is skeptically appraised and enriched
discovery phase. The reason for this is because such using qualitative empirical observations taken from
hypotheses require a level of detail (e.g., nonlinear contrasting cases, completing the discovery phase.
micropatterns of change) or a scope of observation Then, the rational-empirical model is used as a
(e.g., an entire set of treatments sessions) that goes far hypothesis generator and subjected to rigorous test-
beyond the analytical capacity of a process researcher ing in the validation phase, thereby affirming the
using qualitative empirical methods alone. None- credibility of the model. In prior research, this has
theless, at the same time, such hypotheses are based been done by relating the presence of key components
on qualitative process models of change, the richness in the model to good task outcome. Here, we have
of which cannot be captured by the sole use of presented a modified verification method, which goes
standard psychometric measures. further by relating a sequential pattern of processes to
outcome.
Finally, the most innovative development pre-
Conclusions sented here is to add a new phase: In the dynamic
Task Analysis: A Guide for Programmatic modeling phase, one explores the sequential struc-
Research on Change ture that underlies a given model of change. We have
described how categorical measures based on quali-
Task analysis is best conceptualized as a method that tative findings can be revised into ordinal measures,
systematically unfolds over a program of research by opening the way to a new generation of inquiries that
way of complementary methodological phases (cf. fuse both qualitative observations and quantitative
Lakatos, 1970). We believe that by presenting the predictive modeling. This task analytic approach to
method in this way, as a template for programmatic model building lends itself to developing causal
research, it will be more accessible to researchers models of change by discerning those organismic
who hope to develop models and measures about a recurrent characteristics (i.e., invariants) of the
process of change. In this article, we have also change process that likely index clients’ organismic
described the way in which task analysis differs in processes that induce change.
scope and purpose from other qualitative methods
and that task analytic models may yield both
descriptive and causal accounts of change. More- Future Directions
over, we have provided a step-by-step account of task Challenges to making causal models. There are
analysis, which emphasized recent developments in some tangible limits to task analysis and other
task analysis (also see the Appendix). methods seeking to sketch causal models of change
Modeling a process of change in task analysis in psychotherapy. Although modeled patterns of
begins with a rational model that draws on the change allow one to identify invariant patterns in
literature and on one’s expert clinical experience. the process, we can only infer that these patterns

reflect causal mechanisms to the extent that more
fundamental research has articulated relevant pro-
cesses as constructs (e.g., hidden organismic opera-
tors). Existing theories of functioning in clinical and
personality psychology are not yet coherent enough
to allow this to be done more than tentatively. Until
then, we must be content with inferring that certain
client characteristics (i.e., organismic dispositions)
exist, without having a clear idea of what they are.
Conceptual challenges for using task analysis. Aside
from the ambitious aims of causal modeling, task
analysis has not been widely used in the field of
psychotherapy research. One of the reasons for this
is likely a lack of clarity in the types of questions that
might be best suited to the method. Indeed,
although there have been some noteworthy excep-
tions, task analysis as applied to psychotherapy has
generally been associated with EFT and with mar-
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014
ker-based interventions in particular. We shall in-
dicate future possible applications where task
analysis could be a useful strategy but is not
currently used. The fact that clients’ productive
processes are not always self-evident and, moreover,
that they are not always conceptualized as reflecting
some specific goal-oriented behavior poses an im-
portant conceptual challenge. Thus, a prerequisite
to extending the application of task analysis is to
explicate the nature of clients’ implicitly goal-
oriented efforts (i.e., what are often tacit tasks).
For example, how a client eventually manages to
generate evidence to challenge automatic dysfunc-
tional thoughts can be seen as an important client task
that requires several tacit steps in cognitive-affective
information processing. Moreover, although these
steps have been theorized by means of cognitive

behavioral (rationalist) models, they have not been
systematically studied using a moment-by-moment
discovery-oriented phase of research. On another
note, psychodynamic insights often occur by coordi-
nating processes that are within as well as outside the
client’s awareness, which suggests the client’s task of
gaining insights may be more amenable to task
analyses than to other qualitative methods (e.g., see
Joyce et al., 1995). For task analysis to be used more
broadly, aspects of forming and maintaining a ther-
apeutic alliance must also be conceptualized as goal-
directed efforts (i.e., as interpersonal tasks). For
instance, just as Safran and Muran (2003) have
identified resolving relationship ruptures as a task in
and of itself, the initial development of a strong
therapeutic alliance could also be conceptualized as
an interpersonal task. Similarly, terminating therapy
is again a task in which two participants strive to reach
a defined end marker.
In short, many qualitative studies that can be
understood as reflecting some (implicitly or explicitly)
Task analysis 541
goal-directed behaviors could likely be extended using
task analytic methods to eventually yield quantita-
tively predictive models of change. In short, if reliable
start and end markers were established for these or
other tasks of interest, diverse theories (cognitive,
behavioral, psychodynamic, and relational theories)
could be used to interpret key processes that lead to
change. In the end, models of moment-by-moment
change help to explain how and why clients eventually
improve in treatment and can have important
implications for practice.
Note
1
See reference list for official citation to be used in referencing
this material. The use of APA information does not imply
endorsement by the APA.
References
Frankel, Z., Levitt, H. M., Murray, D. M., Greenberg, L. S., &
Angus, L. (2006). Assessing silent processes in psychotherapy:
An empirically derived categorization system and sampling
strategy. Psychotherapy Research, 16, 627
638.
Greenberg, L. (1984). Task analysis: The general approach.
In L. Rice & L. Greenberg (Eds), Patterns of change: Intensive
analysis of psychotherapy process (pp. 126
184). New York:
Guilford Press.
Greenberg, L. (1991). Research on the process of change.
Psychotherapy Research, 1, 14
24.
Greenberg, L. S. (2002). Emotion-focussed therapy: Coaching clients
to work through their feelings. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Greenberg, L. S. (2007). A guide to conducting a task analysis of
psychotherapeutic change. Psychotherapy Research, 17, 15
30.
Greenberg, L. S., & Paivio, S. C. (1997). Working with emotions in
psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Greenberg, L. S., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2001). A dialectical
constructivist view of the creation of personal meaning. Journal
of Constructivist Psychology, 14, 165
186.
Greenberg, L. S., & Pinsof, W. M. (1986). Process research:
Current trends and future perspectives. In W. M. Pinsof & L. S.
Greenberg (Eds), The psychotherapeutic process: A research
handbook (pp. 3
20). New York: Guilford Press.
Haig, B. D. (2008). Scientific method, abduction, and clinical
reasoning. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64, 1013
1018.
Joyce, A. S., Duncan, S. C., & Piper, W. E. (1995). Responses to
dynamic interpretation in short term individual therapy.
Psychotherapy Research, 5, 49
62.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific
research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds),
Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 51
58). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Levitt, H. M., & Frankel, Z. (2004). Pausing Inventory Categor-
ization System, revised. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Memphis.
Pascual-Leone, A. (2005). Emotional processing in the therapeutic
hour: Why the only way out is through. Unpublished doctoral
thesis, York University.
Pascual-Leone, A. (2009). Dynamic emotional processing in
experiential therapy: Two steps forward, one step back. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 113
126.
 542 A. Pascual-Leone et al.
Pascual-Leone, A., & Greenberg, L. S. (2005). Classification of nature of successful task performance (i.e., reso-
Affective-Meaning States (CAMS). In A. Pascual-Leone (Ed.),
lution, end marker).
Emotional processing in the therapeutic hour: Why the only way out
is through (pp. 289
367). Unpublished doctoral thesis, York . Explicate the investigator’s perspectives and as-
University. sumptions (e.g., emotion theory).
Pascual-Leone, A., & Greenberg, L. S. (2006). Insight and . Specify the task environment and its potency
awareness in experiential therapy. In L. G. Castonguay & C. (e.g., EFT for depression).
E. Hill (Eds), Insight in psychotherapy‘‘ ). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association (pp. 31
56).
. Conduct rational analysis and build a model (i.e.,
Pascual-Leone, A., & Greenberg, L. S. (2007). Emotional review the literature, speculate).
processing in experiential therapy: Why ‘‘the only way out is
through. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 875
Step 2: Empirical Model and Synthesized Model (Figure
887. 1, middle, bottom right)
Pascual-Leone, J. (1978). Compounds, confounds, and models in
developmental information processing: A reply to Trabasso and . Contrast good and poor performances to discern
Foellinger. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 26, 18
40.
essential steps (i.e., fuzzy concepts).
Pascual-Leone, J. (1991). Emotion, development, and psy-
chotherapy: A dialectical constructivist perspective. In J. Safran . Merge rational and empirical models. Then
& L. S. Greenberg (Eds), Emotion, psychotherapy and change reiterate modeling and check for stability.
(pp. 302
335). New York: Guilford Press.
Pascual-Leone, J., & Johnson, J. (2005). A dialectical constructi- Step 3: Measurement
vist view of developmental intelligence. In O. Wilhelm & R. W.
. Develop a categorical measure with as many
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 23:40 22 November 2014

Engle (Eds), Handbook of understanding and measuring intelli-

gence (pp. 177
202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. categories as components in the model.
Pascual-Leone, J., & Sparkman, E. (1980). The dialectics of
empiricism and rationalism: A last methodological reply to
Trabasso. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 29, 88
101. Validation Phase
Peirce, C. S. (1931
1958). Collected papers (Vols. 1
8, C.
Hartshorne, P. Weiss, & A. Burks, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Step 4: Quantitative Analysis (Figure 1, bottom left)
Harvard University Press.
Rennie, D. L. (2000). Grounded theory methodology as metho- . Establish interrater reliability of the categorical
dical hermeneutics: Reconciling realism and relativism. Theory measure.
& Psychology, 10, 481
501. . Validate the modeled processes by relating their
Rennie, D. L., & Toukmanian, S. G. (1992). Explanation in
psychotherapy process research. In S. G. Toukmanian & D. L.
presence to positive in-session effects.
Rennie (Eds), Psychotherapy process research: Paradigmatic and . Relate the model processes to final treatment
narrative approaches (pp. 234
251). London: Sage. outcome. This can be done directly through an
Rice, L. N., & Greenberg, L. S. (Eds). (1984). Patterns of change: outcome study or indirectly by drawing on exist-
Intensive analysis of psychotherapy process. New York: Guilford
ing outcome literature.
Press.
Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (2003). Negotiating the therapeutic
alliance: A relational guide to treatment. New York: Guilford
Dynamic Modeling Phase
Press.
Stiles, W. B. (2006). Assimilation and the process of outcome: Step 5: Explore Sequential Structures
Introduction to a special section. Psychotherapy Research, 16,
389
392. . ‘‘Upgrade’’ to an ordinal measure by assigning
Stiles, W. B. (2007). Theory-building case studies of counselling values to the existing categorical measure.
and psychotherapy. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 7,
122
127.
. Generate and test new hypotheses about the
model’s micro- or macropatterns of change.

Appendix: Step-By-Step Goals in Task Analysis

Discovery Phase
Step 1: Rational Model (Figure 1, top left)
. Define the nature of a task of interest: Articulate
its starting point (task marker) and specify the