Formulation Guidelines

Good Practice Guidelines on the use of
psychological formulation
December 2011
Contents
Foreword........................................................................................................................ 1
1. Executive summary.......................................................................................................... 2
2. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
3. Structure of the document .............................................................................................. 3
4. Brief historical context of formulation .......................................................................... 4
5. Formulation in clinical psychology professional documents ........................................ 5
6. Defining formulation....................................................................................................... 6
7. Purposes of formulation ................................................................................................. 8
8. Clinical issues: When is a formulation a formulation? .................................................. 10
– Formulation as a process and formulation as an event ..................................................... 10
– A partial formulation and a full formulation................................................................... 10
9. Principles of formulation in clinical psychology ........................................................... 12
– Person-centred and problem-specific formulation ................................................... 13
– Multiple-model and single-model formulation ......................................................... 13
– Integration-through-personal-meaning and list-of-factors formulation................... 15
– Formulation and diagnosis ......................................................................................... 16
Psychiatric formulation and psychological formulation ..................................................... 17
– Formulation and culture............................................................................................. 18
10. Formulation and the service/organisational context .................................................... 19
11. Formulation and the wider social/societal context ....................................................... 20
12. Ethical issues in formulation........................................................................................... 21
13. Formulation: Areas for development ............................................................................. 23
– Research into formulation .......................................................................................... 23
– Formulation and electronic records .......................................................................... 23
– Formulation-based alternatives to psychiatric diagnosis........................................... 24
14. Summary and recommendations .................................................................................... 26
15. Relevant BPS documents................................................................................................. 27
Appendix 1: Checklist of good practice in the use of formulation .................................... 28
Appendix 2: Professional guidelines and criteria in relation to formulation .................... 31
Appendix 3: Formulation and research ................................................................................ 34
References .............................................................................................................................. 36
If you have problems reading this document and would like it in a

different format, please contact us with your specific requirements.
Tel: 0116 252 9523; E-mail: P4P@bps.org.uk.
Printed and published by the British Psychological Society.

© The British Psychological Society 2011
The British Psychological Society, St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UK
Telephone: 0116 254 9568 Facsimile 0116 227 1314
E-mail: mail@bps.org.uk Website: www.bps.org.uk
Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered Charity No 229642
Foreword
The following people have contributed to the guidelines:
Dr Lucy Johnstone (Lead author and chair of the Working Party)
Dr Stuart Whomsley (Co-author and member of the Working Party)
Dr Samantha Cole (Co-author and member of the Working Party)
Dr Nick Oliver (Co-author and member of the Working Party)
Invited comments were received from:

Kamel Chahal (Chair, Faculty of Race & Culture)
Dr Stuart Gibson (Chair, Faculty for Sexual Health & HIV)
Dr John Hanna (Chair, Faculty for Psychosis and Complex Mental Health)
Dr Theresa Joyce (Chair, Faculty for Learning Disabilities)
Duncan Law (Chair, Faculty for Children & Young People)
Dr Margaret O’Rourke (Chair, Faculty of Forensic Clinical Psychology)
Dr Frank Ryan (Committee member, Faculty for Addictions)
Jane Street (Chair, Faculty for Holistic Psychology)
Other expert commentators were:

Professor Mike Berger
Jan Bostock
Professor Mary Boyle
Isabel Clarke
Dr Sarah Corrie
Tricia Hagan
Dr David Harper
Professor Peter Kinderman
Professor David Lane
Professor David Pilgrim
Sue Staite
Service user and carer commentators were:

Iola Davies
Sheena Foster (DCP Service User & Carer Liaison Committee)
Pauline Heslop
Nick Redman
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Catherine Dooley, Chair of the PGP and the PGP committee for
their support and comments, Tracey Goode for her assistance with formatting and
Helen Barnett, BPS Member Network Adviser, and Martin Reeves, BPS P4P Department,
for their assistance with production.
Good Practice Guidelines on the use of psychological formulation 1

1. Executive summary
● Formulation is a core skill for clinical psychologists at all levels and in all specialties.
These guidelines outline best practice for the profession of clinical psychology.
● This document defines psychological formulation as a hypothesis about a person’s
difficulties, which links theory with practice and guides the intervention.
● Psychological formulation can serve a large number of purposes for individuals,
teams and organisations.
● Formulation can be understood as both an event and a process, and it summarises
and integrates a broad range of biopsychosocial causal factors. It is based on
personal meaning and constructed collaboratively with service users and teams.
● The document recognises the value of all types of formulation, while recommending
that clinical psychologists always formulate from a broad-based, integrated and
multi-model perspective which locates personal meaning within its wider systemic,
organisational and societal contexts.
● Current research findings are reviewed, along with ethical considerations relating to
the use of formulation.
● Recommendations are made for future developments in theory, practice and
research.
● Principles for best practice formulation and formulating are summarised in a
checklist.
2. Introduction
The guidelines have been developed for the Division of Clinical Psychology for the
purpose of promoting best practice in psychological formulation, which is a core
competence for clinical psychologists. The guidance is intended to be of benefit to clinical
psychologists and clinical psychology training courses. Briefer versions suitable for other
stakeholders (e.g. commissioners, service users and carers) are currently being developed.
2 Division of Clinical Psychology

3. Structure of the document
There is no universally agreed definition of formulation, and it is understood and used in
varying ways by different professional groups. For this reason, a relatively large proportion
of the document is devoted to outlining definitions, purposes and general principles of
formulation in relation to clinical psychology. These sections may or may not be directly
applicable to other professions (psychiatrists, nurses, etc.).
Formulation raises some areas of debate for the profession of clinical psychology, such as
the use of integrative as opposed to single-model formulations, the use of psychiatric
diagnosis alongside psychological formulation, and the role of formulation within its wider
organisational and societal contexts. While these guidelines are not prescriptive about
individual practice in any of these complex areas, they do attempt to establish some broad
principles for best practice psychological formulations in order to inform the debate.
Current evidence on the theory and practice of formulation, which is an under-researched

area, is summarised. Ethical considerations relating to formulating are also discussed.
The document concludes with a summary and recommendations for further development
and research. Appendix 1 consists of a checklist of good practice for clinical psychologists
in formulation and formulating.

4. Brief historical context of formulation
In a broad sense, constructing meaning out of mental distress has a very long history.
For example, Freud wrote:
I was trained to employ local diagnoses…and it still strikes me myself as strange that the case histories
I write should read like short stories and that, as one might say, they lack the serious imprint of
science… Case histories of this kind…have, however, one advantage…namely an intimate connection
between the story of the patient’s sufferings and the symptoms of his illness. (Freud & Breuer,
1895/1974, p.231)
The roots of formulation as a core skill of the profession of clinical psychology can be
traced back to the 1950s and the emergence of the scientist-practitioner model. In this,
clinical psychologists are seen as applied scientists, drawing on the science of psychology in
order to generate hypotheses about individual clients (Kennedy & Llewelyn, 2001). The
presenting problems became a puzzle to solve which engaged the clients in the process.
Influential clinicians such as Hans Eysenck, Victor Meyer, Monte Shapiro and Ira Turkat
used the principles of classical and operant learning theory to develop individualised
alternatives to psychiatric diagnosis. These summaries later came to include thought
processes, in line with the emergence of cognitive-behavioural therapy (see Bruch & Bond,
1998; Crellin, 1998; Corrie & Lane, 2010, for a more detailed history).
The term ‘formulation’ was first included in clinical psychology regulations in 1969
(Crellin, 1998), and it is now one of the core competencies of the profession, along with
assessment, intervention, evaluation, audit and research, personal and professional skills,
communication and teaching skills, service delivery skills and transferable skills (Division
of Clinical Psychology, 2010). Formulation is also practised by health, educational, forensic,
counselling, and sports and exercise psychologists, as described in the Health Professions
Council regulations (Health Professions Council, 2009). It features in the curriculum for
psychiatrists’ training in the UK (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2010), although, as
discussed below, there are some differences of emphasis in psychiatric as compared to
psychological formulation.

5. Formulation in clinical psychology
professional documents
Formulation as a core competency within clinical psychology is referenced in a number of
professional documents which define clinical psychologists’ standards, activities and skills.
Examples are listed below (see Appendix 1 for details).
Management Advisory Service (MAS) (1989). Review of clinical psychology services.

London: Department of Health.
Health Professions Council (HPC) (2009). Standards of proficiency: Practitioner psychologists.

London: Health Professions Council.
British Psychology Society (BPS) (2010). Accreditation through partnership criteria: Guidance for
clinical psychology programmes. Leicester: British Psychological Society.
Division of Clinical Psychology (2010). Clinical Psychology: The core purpose and philosophy of
the profession. Leicester: British Psychological Society.
Skinner, P. & Toogood, R. (Eds.) (2010). Clinical psychology leadership development framework.
Leicester: British Psychological Society.
The recommendations from these documents can be summarised as follows:

● Psychological formulation is a core competency for clinical psychologists at all levels,
starting with training, and in all aspects of their work.
● Clinical psychologists’ formulations should draw on and integrate a wide range of
interpersonal, biological, social and cultural factors.
● Clinical psychologists should be using, sharing, promoting and offering training in
formulation and formulating within multi-disciplinary teams and organisations as
well as with individual service users and their families and carers.

6. Defining formulation
Despite the widespread use of the term in key clinical psychology documents, there is no
universally agreed definition of formulation, and different professions bring their own
characteristic perspectives to the subject (see Corrie & Lane, 2010, pp.10–12; and
Johnstone & Dallos, 2006, ch.1). For the purposes of these guidelines, definitions will be
drawn from the field of clinical psychology.
A recent clinical psychology textbook (Johnstone & Dallos, 2006) lists the essential features
of formulations across different therapeutic modalities. All formulations:
● summarise the service user’s core problems;
● suggest how the service user’s difficulties may relate to one another, by drawing on
psychological theories and principles;
● aim to explain, on the basis of psychological theory, the development and
maintenance of the service user’s difficulties, at this time and in these situations;
● indicate a plan of intervention which is based in the psychological processes and
principles already identified;
● are open to revision and re-formulation.
(NB: The term ‘service user’ in this document may include family/carers, especially in Child and
Adolescent and Learning Disability settings where systemic formulations are commonly used.)
Clinical psychologist Gillian Butler (1998, p.2) puts this succinctly:

A formulation is the tool used by clinicians to relate theory to practice… It is the lynchpin that holds
theory and practice together… Formulations can best be understood as hypotheses to be tested.
The Core Purpose and Philosophy of the Profession (DCP, 2010, pp.5-6) states:
Psychological formulation is the summation and integration of the knowledge that is acquired by this
assessment process that may involve psychological, biological and systemic factors and procedures. The
formulation will draw on psychological theory and research to provide a framework for describing a
client’s problem or needs, how it developed and is being maintained. Because of their particular
training in the relationship of theory to practice, clinical psychologists will be able to draw on a number
of models (bio-psycho-social) to meet needs or support decision making and so a formulation may
comprise a number of provisional hypotheses. This provides the foundation from which actions may
derive… Psychological intervention, if considered appropriate, is based upon the formulation.
Both Health Professions Council criteria and British Psychological Society criteria for
training courses state that clinical psychologists should: Be able to use professional and research
skills in work with clients based on a scientist-practitioner and reflective-practitioner model that
incorporates a cycle of assessment, formulation, intervention and evaluation (HPC, 2009; BPS, 2010).
The influence of our core professional identity as scientist-practitioners can be seen in the
emphasis, in these definitions, on applying psychological principles and theory in order to
develop hypotheses about service users’ difficulties. The assumption is that this process will
render even the most unusual or disturbing behaviour and experiences understandable:
‘…at some level it all makes sense’ (Butler, 1998, p.2).

As the definitions indicate, clinical psychology also draws on the tradition of reflective
practice (Schon, 1987). Reflective practice is a loose term, but implies that the subject
matter of our discipline, human beings and human distress, is not best served by the
narrow ‘technical-rational’ application of research to practice. Rather, it requires a kind of
artistry that also involves intuition, flexibility and critical evaluation of one’s experience.
In other words, formulation is ‘a balanced synthesis of the intuitive and rational cognitive
systems’ (Kuyken, 2006, p.30).
This approach allows for the view of formulation as a shared narrative, or a story that is
‘constructed rather than discovered’ (Harper & Spellman, 2006). These unique individual
stories are centrally concerned with the personal meaning to the service user of the events
and experiences of their lives, and it is the personal meaning that is the integrating factor
in the narrative. A formulation is not an expert pronouncement, like a medical diagnosis,
but a ‘plausible account’ (Butler, 1998, p.1), and as such best assessed in terms of
usefulness than ‘truth’ (Butler, 1998; Johnstone, 2006).
The task of the clinical psychologist is to use their clinical skills to combine these two
aspects, psychological theory/principles/evidence on the one hand, and personal
thoughts, feelings and meanings on the other, through ‘a process of ongoing collaborative
sense-making’ (Harper & Moss, 2003, p.8) in order to develop a shared account that
indicates the most helpful way forward.
It should be acknowledged that all human beings are meaning-makers who create
narratives about their lives and difficulties. Formulations differ from this kind of
explanation by being strongly rooted in psychological theory and evidence. Given the
widespread dissemination of psychological ideas in the media, self-help books and so on,
this is a relative rather than an absolute distinction.

7. Purposes of a formulation
Clinical psychologists use formulation with individuals, couples, families and groups.
There is also a growing trend for using formulation in multi-disciplinary teamwork, both
inpatient and community-based. In this, a group of staff is supported to construct a shared
formulation for and with service users known to some or all of the team members.
Formulations may also be developed and shared with professionals from other agencies
and services – wards, hostels, schools, day centres, care homes, courts, and so on – and with
the wider organisation in which the psychologist is employed.
The quality of a formulation is dependent in large part on the quality of the assessment
and the information derived from it. Clinical psychologists are expected to be competent
to use a range of procedures such as psychometric tests, risk assessments and structured
interviewing. Information may also be gathered from relatives and carers, other
professionals, diaries, medical notes, observation, feedback from homework tasks, and so
on. Quality also depends on supporting the service user (and sometimes family/carers) to
convey their understanding of the difficulties as fully as possible, along with strengths and
resources. High quality formulations should also be informed by the most recent evidence,
as summarised in NICE guidelines, Cochrane reviews and scientific journals.
The main purpose of a formulation in any setting is:

● identifying the best way forward and informing the intervention.
Reviews and practice-based reports have suggested that formulation can serve a range of
other purposes, including:
● clarifying hypotheses and questions;
● providing an overall picture or map;
● noticing gaps in the information about the service user;
● prioritising issues and problems;
● selecting and planning interventions;
● minimising decision-making biases and increasing transparency, by making choices
and decisions explicit;
● framing medical interventions;
● predicting responses to interventions; predicting difficulties;
● thinking about lack of progress; troubleshooting;
● determining criteria for successful outcome;
● ensuring that a cultural understanding has been incorporated;
● helping the service user (and carer) to feel understood and contained;
● helping the therapist to feel contained;
● strengthening the therapeutic alliance;
● encouraging collaborative work with the service user (and carer);
● emphasising strengths as well as needs;
● normalising problems; reducing service user (and carer) self-blame;
● increasing the service user’s sense of agency, meaning and hope.
(Based on Butler, 1998; Johnstone & Dallos, 2006; Kuyken et al., 2009; Corrie & Lane, 2010.)

Clinicians have reported additional benefits from using formulation in teamwork in order
to develop a shared understanding of a service user’s difficulties:
● achieving a consistent team approach to intervention;
● helping team, service user and carers to work together;
● gathering key information in one place;
● generating new ways of thinking;
● dealing with core issues (not just crisis management);
● understanding attachment styles in relation to the service as a whole;
● supporting each other with service users who are perceived as complex and
challenging;
● drawing on and valuing the expertise of all team members;
● challenging unfounded ‘myths’ or beliefs about service users;
● reducing negative staff perceptions of service users;
● processing staff counter-transference reactions;
● helping staff to manage risk;
● minimising disagreement and blame within the team;
● increasing team understanding, empathy and reflectiveness;
● raising staff morale;
● conveying meta-messages to staff about hope for positive change.
(Based on Summers, 2006; Clarke, 2008; Lake, 2008; Kennedy, 2009; Whomsley, 2009;
Berry et al., 2009; Hood, 2009; Craven-Staines et al., 2010; Wainwright & Bergin, 2010;
Walton, 2011; Christofides et al., 2011.)
Formulation does not necessarily lead to intervention; it may indicate that no further input
from professionals is needed. It should also be noted that developing a formulation can be
a powerful intervention in itself, and may be enough on its own to enable the service user
or team to move forward and make changes.
Team formulation is in keeping with the profession’s wider remit to work at a team, service
and organisational level. The clinical psychology leadership framework lists one of the
roles of a qualified psychologist as: Lead on psychological formulation within your team (Skinner
& Toogood, 2010). This might include supervising and training other members of the
multi-disciplinary team in formulation. It has been suggested that using formulation in
teamwork is a particularly effective way of achieving culture change and promoting a more
psychosocial perspective in services as a whole: (‘A good formulation can be a powerful
systemic intervention’, Kennedy et al., 2003; ‘Taking formulation into a wider setting can
be a powerful way of shifting cultures towards more psychosocial perspectives’, Onyett,
2007). Another purpose of formulation is, therefore:
● facilitating culture change in teams and organisations.

8. Clinical issues: When is a formulation a formulation?
The boundaries of what actually constitutes a formulation are somewhat arbitrary. There is
no absolute or definite cut-off point on the dimensions listed below.
Formulation as a process and formulation as an object or event (Cole & Johnstone, in press;
Ingram, 2006).
Formulations are developed through a recursive process of assessment, discussion,
intervention, feedback and revision. At some point this may be summarised in
writing or a diagram, although these two aspects are not completely distinct from
each other.
In practice, ‘formulation-as-a-process’ may be the more common clinical activity.
However, formulations in letters to referrers and training coursework are likely to be
presented as a one-off ‘formulation-as-event.’ Written versions might also take the
form of a letter to the service user; a section of a psychologist’s letter to the referrer;
a summary for the team which will be added to the medical notes; a section on a
CPA form or in the electronic record; and so on.
A partial formulation and a full formulation.

There is always the possibility of re-formulation in order to include new information
and insights, and in this sense all formulations are partial and dynamic; in the words
of one psychologist, they are ‘broad snapshot summaries of complex evolving
stories’ (Cole & Johnstone, in press). However, some formulations are necessarily
and appropriately more comprehensive and detailed than others. For example,
a coursework assignment may be several paragraphs long and focus on a complex set
of difficulties in the context of a person’s whole life story; this is suited to its main
purpose of assessing a trainee’s competence. In contrast, a qualified psychologist
may find that simple diagrammatic formulations (e.g. demonstrating how automatic
thoughts lead to anxiety which leads to avoidance) are often more suitable for
routine clinical practice. CBT-based formulations typically develop through a
sequence of descriptive summaries, cross-sectional formulations and longitudinal
formulations, as more information is gathered (Kuyken et al., 2009; Persons, 2008).
Another type of partial formulation is evident in the formulation-informed thinking

that, evidence suggests, is used by clinical psychologists in almost every aspect of
their daily practice and seen by them and other multi-disciplinary team members as
an invaluable aspect of their role (Christofides et al., 2011; Hood, 2009).
For example, a psychologist may suggest during a team discussion that a service
user’s behaviour can be understood in the light of their history of rejection. This
kind of on-the-spot contribution to case discussions, ward rounds, CPA reviews and
team meetings is not necessarily documented in writing, or defined as formulation
in a formal sense.

In order to decide how full a formulation needs to be, whether or not it should be
documented in writing and where its main focus should lie, a psychologist will need to
consider factors such as: where the most pressing concern or ‘stuck point’ is; the extent to
which wider systemic factors seem relevant; the stage of the therapy or intervention; the
amount of information available; the likely receptiveness of the service user, family, team or
service; and the usual constraints of time and resources.
While the principles outlined in this document will be broadly relevant to formulation
used in a more partial, informal or evolving way, for obvious reasons it will not always be
possible, necessary or appropriate to incorporate them in full. Clinical judgement must be
exercised in making these decisions. However, the guidelines can still be seen as a useful
reference point and checklist of good practice for all stages and versions of formulation
and formulating.

9. Principles of formulation in clinical psychology
For the purposes of these guidelines, psychological formulation will mainly be used in its
‘formulation-as-an-event’ sense (i.e. the written or diagrammatic version which is
developed with service users/teams/referrers, and appears in letters/medical
notes/electronic records.) However, the written formulation necessarily evolves, and
continues to evolve, out of ‘formulation-as-a-process.’ For this reason close attention will
also be paid to the process of formulating. Thus, best practice in both formulation and
formulating will be addressed. (A complete set of criteria is presented in the checklist in
Appendix 1.)
The following principles of psychological formulation in clinical psychology are widely

accepted:
● it is grounded in psychological theory and evidence;
● it is constructed collaboratively, using accessible language;
● it is constructed reflectively;
● it is centrally concerned with personal meaning;
● it is best understood in terms of usefulness than ‘truth’.
In addition, it will be argued that best practice clinical psychology formulation and
formulating has the following characteristics:
● it is person-specific not problem-specific;
● it draws from a range of models and causal factors;
● it integrates, not just lists, the various possible causal factors through an
understanding of their personal meaning to the service user;
● it is not premised on functional psychiatric diagnoses such as schizophrenia or
personality disorder. Rather, the experiences that may have led to a psychiatric
diagnosis (e.g. low mood, hearing voices) are themselves formulated;
● it includes a cultural perspective and understanding of the service user’s
presentation and distress;
● it is clear about who is the service user and who are the stakeholders in any given
situation;
● it starts from a critical awareness of the wider societal context of formulation, even if
these factors are not explicitly included in every formulation.
(NB: ‘service user’ will include carers if a systemic/family formulation is employed.)
These additional principles raise some complex issues that merit discussion in more detail.
The first five items are expanded in the sections below, while the last two are covered in the
sections on Formulation and the service/organisational context and Formulation and the
wider social/societal context.
In discussing these potentially controversial aspects, the guidelines start from the general
position that all types and versions of formulation can be valuable in the appropriate
circumstances and settings. Any increase in the integration of psychological theory,

principles and evidence into clinical practice is to be welcomed. Simpler, single-model
formulations may be a useful starting point for training purposes: for example, on clinical
psychology doctoral programmes or with members of a multi-disciplinary team. In seeking
to promote culture shift in teams and organisations, it may be helpful and strategic for
clinical psychologists to use ‘list-of-factors’ formulations, or formulations that include
psychiatric diagnosis, as a first step. Additionally, it is acknowledged that it will not be
relevant or necessary to include a complete range of causal factors and contexts in every
psychological formulation. However, the fullest use of clinical psychologists’ professional
skills implies a broad-based, integrated and multi-model perspective which locates personal
meaning within its wider systemic, organisational and societal contexts. Best practice
should be based on a considered choice about what to include or exclude in any given
formulation, in line with the principles discussed in these guidelines, and adapted as
necessary to the service user’s or team’s particular circumstances and contexts.
Person-centred and problem-specific formulation

This refers to the difference between a standardised formulation of a problem as opposed to a
formulation of a particular person’s problematic experiences. As examples of the former,
CBT protocols have been developed for typical cognitive processes in anxiety, depression,
personality disorders, PTSD, psychosis and so on (e.g. Ehlers et al., 2004; Wells, 2004).
Problem-specific formulation has its place, especially with less complex difficulties
(for example, in the Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies programme for anxiety
and depression). It has strong links to the evidence base, and can serve as a starting point
for a more broadly-based formulation. However, as it stands it does not fulfil all of the
principles of psychological formulation as outlined in this document because it allows for
only a limited range of causal and process factors. For example, it may overlook or
downplay the significance of transference, cultural, service/organisational and
social/societal factors. In addition, it does not allow for debate about who is the service
user and who are the stakeholders; and it is based on problematic diagnostic categories.
(All these aspects of psychological formulation are discussed further below.) Problem-
specific formulation thus typifies Level 2 skills (MAS, 1989) rather than the Level 3 skills
that are said to be the defining feature of the profession.
Multiple-model and single-model formulation

Although not all therapies use formulation (e.g. person-centred, narrative) it is a core
feature of the main therapies used by NHS clinical psychologists: CBT, systemic,
psychodynamic and cognitive analytic therapy. Each of these approaches draws on a
particular set of concepts in their formulations (e.g. negative automatic thoughts, problem-
maintaining patterns, the unconscious.) In addition, they each use particular terms for
formulation which entail different theoretical assumptions (e.g. ‘case conceptualisation’
(Beck, 1995), ‘dynamic formulation’ (Malan, 1979) and ‘reformulation’ (Ryle, 1995).
However, it has been argued that differences are not as great as commonalities, and that a
shared conception of formulation, independent of theoretical orientation, is preferable
(Butler, 1998; Goldfried, 1995).

In practice, the majority of clinical psychologists describe themselves as integrative/eclectic.
Options for combining different approaches include the use of an ‘off-the-shelf’ over-
arching model (e.g. cognitive analytic therapy: Ryle, 1995); or theme (e.g. the therapeutic
relationship: Kahn, 1997); or set of techniques (e.g. Egan, 2006); or a personal synthesis of
preferred approaches (Dallos et al., 2006).
Clinical Psychology training criteria require all training courses to teach at least two
evidence-based models of psychological therapy, one of which must be CBT (BPS, 2010.)
There is mixed guidance within the profession about whether psychological formulations
should be based on the integration of two or more therapeutic models, or should more simply
include a wide range of factors. The MAS (1989) report claimed that the former was a
central defining feature of the profession (‘Level 3 skills’.) The Division of Clinical
Psychology (2010) definition states that psychologists will be able to draw on a number of
different models as required, but does not imply that more than one model will necessarily
inform any given formulation. The British Psychological Society criteria for training
courses (BPS, 2010) require the incorporation of ‘interpersonal, societal, cultural and
biological factors’ rather than models. HPC (2009) criteria include: ‘Understand
psychological models related to how biological, sociological and circumstantial or life-
event-related factors impinge on psychological processes to affect psychological well-being’
(3a.1) but make no mention of integration as such.
It should be noted that despite a number of books on the subject (Norcross & Goldfried,
2005; Palmer & Woolfe, 2000) the theoretical integration of different therapeutic models is
very much a work in progress and there are currently no completely satisfactory
frameworks for achieving this. It follows that the same is true for integrative formulations.
Causal factors that are sometimes neglected or downplayed in clinical psychologists’

formulations are:
● transference and counter-transference (especially relevant in team formulations;
Meadon & van Marle, 2008);
● the personal meaning and service user experience of medical interventions such as
diagnosis, medication and admission (Martindale, 2007);
● the potentially traumatising effects of medical and psychiatric interventions
(Lu et al., 2011; Johnstone, 1999);
● the influence of stigma, discrimination and the ‘mental patient’ role (Barham &
Hayward, 1995);
● recent work on the causal role of trauma and abuse in psychosis (Larkin &
Morrison, 2006; Moskowitz et al., 2008). The impact of abuse is often overlooked in
clients with learning difficulty as well;
● social factors such as class, poverty, unemployment, and power relations;
● ethnic and cultural factors.
For the purposes of these guidelines, the consideration and inclusion of relevant factors
from individual, interpersonal, biological, social and cultural domains is recommended,
and it is left to individual preference as to whether this is done by drawing from more than
one therapeutic model. In practice there may be little to distinguish the resulting

formulation, especially given the trend for all therapeutic models to absorb ideas and
perspectives from each other.
It is also noted that not all formulations are based on specific therapeutic models, although
within the definition used in this document, they should all draw on psychological principles
and evidence. These might derive from, for example, attachment theory, or research into
the impact of racism or domestic abuse, or evidence about the psychological effects of
head injury, chronic pain, developmental disorders, alcohol abuse and so on. Psychological
formulations will also draw upon the current evidence-base as summarised in NICE
guidelines, Cochrane reviews and elsewhere.
As previously noted, part of the clinical skill in developing a formulation is deciding how
inclusive it needs to be to meet the required purpose at any given time. Clearly, most
formulations in day-to-day practice will not cover the whole range of possible contexts and
causal factors listed above, and nor would this necessarily be the most appropriate way to
use formulation in every situation. However, a narrower or single-model formulation needs
to be a conscious and justifiable choice from a wider field of possible models and causal
influences.
Integration-through-personal-meaning formulations and list-of-factors

formulations
While the inclusion of causal factors from a number of different dimensions and models is
desirable, this does not necessarily result in integration. Some well-known approaches to
formulation advocate the use of templates for filling in lists of relevant factors from
biological, social, interpersonal and other domains (e.g. Weerasekera, 1996). Psychologists
sometimes use a similar template known as PPPP (predisposing, precipitating, perpetuating
and protective.) This format is also used in psychiatric training (Royal College of
Psychiatrists, 2010) in order to ‘…integrate information from multiple sources to formulate
the case into which relevant predisposing, precipitating, perpetuating and protective factors
are highlighted’ (p.27).
While these kinds of templates may be a useful starting point, they have two limitations:
firstly, they do not require the various factors to be synthesised into a coherent narrative,
as opposed to simply being listed in an additive fashion (X happened, then Y happened, in
the context of Z.) In other words, these formulations are not necessarily integrated, although
they are sometimes described as such. Secondly, the templates do not necessarily include the
personal meaning of the factors and life events, as opposed to a list of external triggers (abused by
stepfather; diagnosed with cancer; bullied at school; etc.). Psychological theory suggests that
the impact of difficult circumstances or events is mediated through the meaning they hold
for the individual (Kinderman et al., 2008). As noted in Section 9, personal meaning is the
integrating factor in a psychological formulation as defined in this document.
(NB: In some client groups, for example, people with a severe learning disability or older adults with
advanced dementia, personal meaning may need to be inferred by the clinician and/or a Best Interest
procedure.)

One of the risks of the list-of-factors approach is the conjoining of incompatible theoretical
models. This is true of some versions of the widely-used diathesis-stress or biopsychosocial
model, as discussed below.
Formulation and diagnosis

Medical conditions such as cancer, Down’s syndrome, Alzheimer’s disease, head injury and
various kinds of physical disability frequently play an important causal role in presentations
in Clinical Health, Learning Disability, Older Adults and Neuropsychology specialties, and
to a lesser extent in Child and Adolescent and Adult Mental Health. Clinicians may also
have to take account of the psychological effects of alcohol, street drugs, stroke, starvation,
and so on, depending on specialty. These medical/organic/developmental factors are an
essential part of a holistic biopsychosocial formulation. The clinical psychologist will aim to
construct a formulation that explores the personal meaning and impact of the condition,
and that also includes the service user’s wider interpersonal and environmental context.
This is consistent with Kinderman et al.’s (2008) model of psychological processes as a
mediating factor and final common pathway in all cases of mental distress, whatever the
particular combination of biological, psychological and social factors in any given situation.
The use of so-called ‘functional’ psychiatric diagnoses such as schizophrenia, bipolar

disorder and personality disorder is more contentious (Boyle, 2002; Bentall, 2003). There
is no space within these guidelines to repeat the long-standing debates about the validity of
such diagnoses (but see forthcoming Division of Clinical Psychology position statement on
classification). However, psychological formulation starts from the assumption that ‘at
some level it all makes sense’ (Butler, 1998, p.2). From this perspective, mood swings,
hearing voices, having unusual beliefs and so on can all be understood as psychological
reactions to current and past life experiences and events, in the same way as more
common difficulties such as anxiety and low mood. They can be rendered understandable
in the context of an individual’s particular life history and the personal meaning that he or
she has constructed about it. They may also be understandable within a cultural context –
for example, beliefs about supernatural possession or witchcraft.
Describing these experiences within an illness model is based on the very different
assumption that the primary causal factor is biological dysfunction. This obscures the
personal meaning of difficult events by framing them as ‘triggers’ of an underlying
biological vulnerability, which lead to ‘symptoms’ rather than understandable responses to
overwhelming life circumstances. It also reduces agency, or the service user’s belief in their
ability to work towards their own recovery, rather than simply waiting for medical
treatment to take effect. Psychological formulation’s meta-messages about personal
meaning, agency and hope can act as a helpful corrective to some of the well-documented
negative consequences of receiving a psychiatric diagnosis, such as increasing a service
user’s sense of powerlessness and worthlessness (Rogers et al., 1993; Barham & Hayward,
1995, Mehta & Farina, 1997; Honos-Webb & Leitner, 2001). A label of learning disability
can also have a profound impact on a service user’s sense of identity.

This does not imply that biological factors should be excluded from formulations in
mental health settings. Clearly we have bodies and brains as well as minds, and there is an
increasing amount of evidence about how they shape each other (e.g. the effect of trauma
and attachment styles on the developing brain; Schore, 2009). This growing area of
research contributes to a genuinely integrated version of a biopsychosocial model that is
not based on unwarranted prioritisation of biological factors but which recognises, in the
words of biologist Steven Rose, that ‘every aspect of our human existence is simultaneously
biological, personal, social and historical’ (2001).
Psychiatric formulation and psychological formulation

A psychiatric formulation, in other words a formulation that is partially based on a
psychiatric diagnosis such as schizophrenia or personality disorder, differs in several
important ways from a psychological formulation. The curriculum for Specialist Core
Training in Psychiatry (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2010) requires trainee psychiatrists to
‘demonstrate the ability to construct formulations of patients’ problems that include
appropriate differential diagnoses’ (p.25). Psychiatric formulation as described in the
curriculum is based on the description of ‘the various biological, psychological and social
factors involved in the predisposition to, the onset of and the maintenance of common
psychiatric disorders’ (p.27). Thus, it may take the form of ‘bipolar disorder triggered by
the stress of bereavement’ or similar.
Psychiatric diagnoses are sometimes included in the types of formulation discussed above:
problem-specific protocols, ‘list-of-factor’ frameworks, and some diathesis-stress and
biopsychosocial formulations. However, with the exception of conditions of clearly organic
origin such as dementia, it is recommended that best practice psychological formulations
in mental health settings are not premised on psychiatric diagnosis. Rather, the
experiences that may have led to a psychiatric diagnosis (low mood, unusual beliefs, etc.)
are themselves formulated. If this is carried out successfully, the addition of a psychiatric
diagnosis becomes redundant. In Bentall’s words (2003, p.141): ‘Once these complaints
have been explained, there is no ghostly disease remaining that also requires an
explanation. Complaints are all there is.’
Since some service users and carers find psychiatric diagnoses helpful, it is in keeping with
the spirit of respectful and collaborative work to include this perspective. In such a case,
the formulation might recognise their views by, for example, noting that ‘You find the
diagnosis of bipolar disorder a useful way of explaining your difficulties to family and
friends.’ For others, the meaning may be less positive, and this too needs to be
acknowledged; for example, ‘The diagnosis of personality disorder seemed to confirm your
feelings of being unacceptable’, and so on. What is important is that enough common
ground can be agreed between psychologist and service user to provide a basis for the
intervention, if one is required. The process of formulating provides an opportunity to
discuss and negotiate a shared psychological perspective with the service user (and his/her
family and carers if appropriate) – one that may not have been offered before. One of the
advantages of psychological formulation over diagnosis is that it allows for this kind of
negotiation.

Formulation and culture
Culture can be defined as a framework that guides and bounds our lives, and through
which actions are filtered or checked as individuals go about daily life. These cultural
frameworks are constantly evolving and being reworked (Anderson & Fenichel, 1989). It is
important to remember, however, that even people sharing the same race or ethnicity can
differ in their cultural backgrounds; for example their values, spiritual and religious
beliefs, health beliefs and so on. It is therefore important to consider cultural issues with
every service user.
Research has shown that black and minority ethnic groups are disadvantaged groups
within health services in general and are less likely to be referred to psychological services
(Karlsen, 2007; Keating et al., 2002). Refugee and asylum seeker populations are especially
vulnerable to developing mental health problems due to the experience of famine, war,
persecution and other traumatic events in their home country. Language differences may
create an additional barrier to the communication of distress. There can also be cultural
variance in how distress is expressed.
Western models of psychology and psychological therapy, and, therefore, the formulations
that are based on them, often privilege ideas of independence and self-actualisation as
indicators of good mental health, and focus on the individual as the basic unit of therapy.
In contrast, non-Western cultures tend to focus more on notions of spirituality and
communality and see the individual as secondary to the family (Webster, 2002). Mental
health may not be seen as separate from physical, emotional and spiritual well-being, and
there may be very different ideas about causation and intervention (Kanwar & Whomsley,
2011). Formulations may, therefore, need adaptation for use in a culturally appropriate
way. One framework for this is the Cultural Formulation model, which has been used in
relation to psychiatric diagnosis (Lewis-Fernandez & Dias, 2002) but also has wider
relevance. It includes the effect of culture on the service user’s difficulties in four key areas:
● cultural identity of the service user, including their language preference and degree
of involvement with both the culture of origin and the host culture;
● the service user’s preferred explanation of their difficulties;
● cultural factors related to both stresses and levels of support in the service user’s
psychosocial environment;
● cultural elements of the relationship between the individual and the clinician, and
their impact on the therapeutic relationship.
The concept of formulation, especially an individual one that prioritises internal causal
factors, is itself culturally-based. Much work remains to be done to develop culturally-
appropriate forms of formulation, along with mental health interventions in general
(Fernando, 2002).

10. Formulation and the service/organisational context
Formulation is carried out within a service/organisational context. There are stakeholders
at all levels of the services, and their interests may not coincide. Formulation ‘is not a
neutral, impartial, non-political statement of fact based on evidence leading to the best
possible intervention for the client. Rather, it is a story told to meet specific needs – an
account agreed between the stakeholders to access whatever change process seems to them
to be appropriate at that time’ (Corrie & Lane, 2010, p.21). One of the essential tasks
facing the psychologist at the start is to clarify who these people or organisations are
(relatives, schools, GPs, managers, teams, and so on), whether/how to take their interests
into account, and what the likely consequences will be (Kennedy, 2009). A skilled and
sensitive approach may be needed to ensure that the formulation is accepted in its wider
systemic context. For example, there may be resistance at various levels, and for various
different reasons, to a formulation which re-frames a problem as a marital/family conflict
or a trauma reaction, rather than as an illness to be diagnosed and treated. It may be even
harder to locate the apparent problem at a service or organisational level rather than at an
individual one.
In relation to psychiatric services in particular, it is important to remember that medical

interventions such as diagnosis, medication and admission have their own psychological
meanings for the individual (Johnstone, 2000; Martindale, 2007) as does the ‘mental
patient’ role itself (Rogers et al., 1993; Barham & Hayward, 1995). These meanings may
compound the difficulties that the service user initially presents with. For example,
psychiatric interventions can be re-traumatising (Lu et al., 2011; Johnstone, 1999); many
service users with learning difficulty have been affected by institutionalisation; and poor
standards of care in Older Adult settings may exacerbate confusion and distress. Service
users have attachment styles to services as well as to individual clinicians, and staff counter-
transference responses sometimes replicate earlier damaging relationships (Meadon &
van Marle, 2008). These possibilities must be considered, especially when formulating with
inpatients and multidisciplinary teams.
Research suggests that, in keeping with the general principles of formulating, a

formulation-based approach is best presented to teams and wider systems tentatively and
with respect for existing views (Christofides et al., 2011); in other words offered rather
than imposed. At the same time, the Leadership Framework makes it clear that it is a
clinical psychologist’s duty to ‘advocate a psychological stance in conjunction with or
instead of other health care models even in difficult circumstances, demonstrating ethics
and values’ (Skinner & Toogood, 2010). This can be a difficult balance to achieve.
The principle that emerges from these considerations is that clinical psychologists should
at all times:
● be clear about who the service user is and who the stakeholders are in relation to
any given formulation.

11. Formulation and the wider social/societal context
Accreditation criteria for clinical psychology doctorate programmes require trainees to
incorporate societal and cultural factors in their formulations (BPS, 2010). The HPC
(2009) regulations state that clinical psychologists should ‘understand social approaches
such as those informed by community, critical and social constructivist perspectives’ (3a.1.)
These place formulation within a wider context of social inequalities and power
relationships (Miller & McClelland, 2006), and remind us that service users are almost
always survivors of immensely difficult personal and social circumstances. Interventions will
be ineffective if wider causal factors are located at an individual level, thus pathologising
the service user and increasing their sense of hopelessness. While it may not be possible to
intervene at a more distal level, ‘switching attention from supposed (and feared) personal
deficiencies to injuries inflicted by a damaging environment…may nevertheless constitute
a form of ‘demystification’, bringing with it a significant relief of distress’ (Hagan & Smail,
1997a, p.266).
There is a careful balance to be struck between acknowledging the very real limitations and
pressures that people face, while not diminishing their sense of hope or agency. Hagan and
Smail’s power-mapping (Hagan & Smail, 1997a, 1997b) and Holland’s (1992) model are
examples of how to integrate more distal influences into formulations, rather than simply
including social factors as an ‘add-on’.
The community/social inequalities/human rights perspective is often poorly integrated

into practice. Recent research underlines the importance of this dimension. Wilkinson and
Pickett (2009) have presented compelling evidence that a society’s level of social inequality
is causally related to its rates of mental illness: ‘If Britain became as equal as the four most
equal societies (Japan, Norway, Sweden and Finland), mental illness might be more than
halved’ (p.261). Particularly relevant to formulation is their suggestion that inequality has
its most damaging impact at least partially through its personal meaning to the individual,
in terms of feeling devalued, shamed, trapped and excluded. This underlines the
importance of being aware of the wider contexts of formulations and clinical work.
In the words of a World Health Organisation report on mental health: ‘…levels of mental
distress among communities need to be understood less in terms of individual pathology
and more as a response to relative deprivation and social injustice’ (WHO, 2009, p.111).
The implication is that clinical psychologists need to:

● have a critical awareness of the wider societal context within which formulating takes
place, even if this dimension is not explicitly included in every formulation.

12. The ethics of formulation
As already noted, psychological formulation gains much of its credibility and usefulness
from being rooted in evidence and psychological theory. This has both benefits and risks.
Research suggests that adult clients find it hard to disagree with formulations that are
presented to them (Johnstone, 2006). One reason may be that:
…what is often obscured is that a psychological perspective also offers a story, albeit, at least initially,
a more coherent story as it is grounded in a theoretical framework. Moreover, as the psychological story
is rooted in the meta-narratives of science and professionalism, it is likely to be more powerful than the
client’s story. (Strawbridge in Corrie & Lane, 2010, p.xxiv)
This applies even more strongly with potentially vulnerable groups such as older adults,
children and people with learning disabilities. In Learning Disabilities services, it may be
important to seek the service user’s consent to work with carers whom they trust. If the
person does not have the capacity to give consent for this, then a best interest process may
need to be considered.
Formulation has potential limitations and drawbacks. It can be influenced by decision-

making biases such as the availability heuristic and the anchoring heuristic (Kuyken et al.,
2009; Corrie & Lane, 2010). Reflectiveness provides some safeguard against bias by
ensuring that our practice-based choices are underpinned by a systematic, psychologically-
informed account of the service user’s circumstances and needs which can be articulated
and, therefore, challenged if necessary.
Formulation can be used in insensitive or disempowering ways (Johnstone, 2006). There is

evidence that as well as finding formulations helpful, encouraging and reassuring, service
users can also (sometimes at the same time) experience them as saddening, upsetting,
frightening, overwhelming and worrying (Chadwick et al., 2003; Evans & Parry, 1996;
Morberg Pain et al., 2008). While it is possible that the longer-term impact is beneficial
overall, much more research is needed into service user and carer reactions to
formulation.
Some specific issues arise in relation to team formulation. Frequently the request for a
formulation is made because staff are stuck or struggling, or have strong counter-
transference feelings about a service user. In team formulation the primary client is often,
in effect, the team. While the team may need their reactions to be included and
formulated, it will not always be helpful for the service user to be presented with these
responses. The team formulation may, therefore, not be shared with the service user in its
entirety. This would follow the same principles of information shared in a professionals’
meeting or in supervision. However, it is good practice for a parallel formulation to be
drawn up with the service user, with staff feelings and reactions only incorporated and
added to the official records if appropriately phrased.

Working collaboratively with service users (and where relevant, families and carers), using
everyday language, emphasising strengths as well as needs, and making good use of
supervision will help to minimise formulation’s potentially unhelpful aspects. Special care
is needed with children and people with learning disabilities for whom the use of clear
language, pictures or tapes/CDs will increase accessibility. These groups may be
particularly vulnerable to being ‘formulated’ without their knowledge or consent.
A formulation that is not understood by, or acceptable to, the service user is not a useful
formulation, and implies, at the very least, the need for further collaborative discussion in
order to develop a shared perspective. Complete agreement may not be achieved, or may
be the subject of negotiation throughout the intervention (see May’s 2011 discussion about
‘Relating to alternative realities’). However, it is essential to try and identify some common
ground, and to respect the service user/team’s right to differ in other areas.
Reflectiveness is seen by many clinical psychologists as an essential aspect of formulating,

enhancing collaboration, sensitivity, flexibility, and awareness of one’s own assumptions,
and avoiding the danger of ‘a diagnostic style of formulation which is just a list of
problems…an inflexible and concrete bunch of ideas’ (Ray, 2008).
As discussed above, awareness of the service/organisational and social/societal contexts of

formulation will help to guard against meta-messages of blame and individual deficiency.
It will also alert clinicians to be prepared to question assumptions about who has ‘the
problem.’
To avoid the risk of objectifying the service user, the phrase ‘Formulation for/with X’
rather than ‘…of X’ is recommended. This makes it clear that the formulation is
collaboratively constructed and at the service of the person.

13. Formulation: Areas for development
Formulation is a developing field. Three areas that need more work are research, inclusion
in electronic records, and formulation-based alternatives to psychiatric diagnosis. These
are discussed briefly below.
Research into formulation

Clinical psychologists, like other health professionals, are committed to practice that is
based on the best evidence. Evidence-based practice can be understood in two different
ways in relation to formulation. Firstly, there is the research into the theoretical content
and psychological principles on which formulation is based. This is extensive, particularly
in areas such as CBT, attachment theory, developmental psychology, and the therapeutic
relationship. In addition, there is substantial evidence about the psychological effects of
trauma, bereavement, poverty, discrimination, domestic abuse, head injury, physical
disability, stroke, alcohol, illicit drugs, and so on. Secondly, there is the question of whether
there is evidence to support formulation as a specific intervention. Currently, most of this
evidence, that is for reliability, usefulness, effect on outcomes, positive impact on the
service user/family/carers and on teams and so on, is lacking. This is despite the fact that
formulation is considered to be a central component of the psychological therapies that
are most commonly practised within NHS settings, and a starting point for the process of
intervention.
The lack of a service user perspective is a major gap in the literature, as is an

understanding of the process by which clinicians draw up formulations (although some
attempts have been made to fill this gap, Corrie & Lane, 2010; Kuyken et al., 2009).
Further research is needed in order to develop formulations in a way that is respectful of
service users’ and carers’ experiences, and that maximises benefits while minimising
potential negative effects. We also need to know much more about whether and how
formulation enhances interventions and care packages, facilitates recovery, improves
outcomes, and fulfils the many other purposes claimed for it. Margison et al. (2000) have
recommended that evidence for the effectiveness of psychological therapy, including
formulation, should come from practice-based evidence as well as evidence-based practice.
(See Appendix 2 for a fuller summary of existing research on formulation.)
Formulation and electronic records.

Many NHS Trusts now use electronic information systems for mental health services, and
the aim is for this to become universal. Every patient will have an electronic clinical record
(ECR) containing clinical information and demographic, care and outcome data. The aim
is for the ECR to contain all the information necessary to support the business, policy, and
research requirements for NHS organisations in England (Department of Health, 2010).
Some Adult Mental Health electronic systems, for example, Rio, do include a space for
formulation. However, initial research has found that without specific training, most
CMHT staff are likely to use leave this section blank or use it incorrectly (Thomas, 2008).

As Berger (in press, a) has pointed out:
Making the ECR the primary, if not sole source of future NHS information requirements means that if
something is not available for processing in the electronic record, it is unlikely to be taken into account
in the analyses and decisions that underpin NHS services. Hence, unless the ECR records psychology
involvement in a way that reflects psychology thinking and practices, psychology will be off the record,
not just literally, but in other important ways. The overarching challenge, therefore, is to make
psychological perspectives part of the ECR.
He makes proposals for psychology-specific datasets which code the information from
assessment and formulation, among other aspects of a psychologist’s work (Berger,
in press, b). This task is still at a very early stage.
SNOMED CT has recently been approved as the standard clinical terminology for the NHS
in England. SNOMED CT stands for the ‘Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical
Terms’, and it is used in more than 50 countries. It consists of a recognised set of clinical
terms for ECR systems and can be utilised across all care settings and all clinical domains.
www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/data/uktc/snomed
As with all types of ECRs, much work remains to be done on incorporating psychological
activity in general, and formulation in particular, in a meaningful way with due regard for
confidentiality (see Guidelines on the use of electronic health records, BPS 2011.)
Formulation-based alternatives to psychiatric diagnosis

Psychiatric diagnosis is deeply embedded in practice, research and clinical governance,
as well as in other areas of public life such as the criminal justice system and the benefits
system. This is likely to remain true for the foreseeable future. For example, Trusts are
required to return Mental Health Minimum Data Sets based on psychiatric diagnoses.
The IAPT initiative is based on diagnostic criteria for depression and anxiety disorders
(with others to be included soon). NICE recommendations and most outcome measures
are diagnostically-based, and a diagnosable mental illness is a pre-requisite for access to
mental health services. Court reports and risk assessments are based on psychiatric
diagnoses. Most evidence-based practice is based on classification by psychiatric diagnosis,
despite the fact that these terms are not evidence-based themselves; that is, they have poor
reliability and validity (Boyle, 2002; Bentall, 2003). Although it could be argued that
formulation is a viable alternative to some psychiatric diagnoses at an individual level, there
is no agreed system of non-medical terms to replace psychiatric diagnosis for broader,
clustering purposes.
Some clinical psychologists and psychiatrists have suggested new categories that
incorporate recent evidence about the causal role of trauma, and can perhaps be seen as
occupying a place halfway between functional psychiatric diagnoses and formulation.
For example, it has been proposed that in many cases ‘personality disorder’ is better
understood as ‘complex PTSD’ (Herman, 2001). Similarly, Callcott & Turkington (2006)
have suggested ‘traumatic psychosis’ as an alternative to some diagnoses of ‘schizophrenia’.

These terms have the obvious advantage, from the point of view of documents and records,
of brevity. They do not necessarily imply wholesale rejection of existing psychiatric
diagnoses. They do, however, represent initial attempts to develop coherent, credible
alternative forms of categorisation which are based on psychological theory and which
have direct implications for both aetiology and intervention. In fact it could be argued that
some current psychiatric diagnoses, for example, bereavement reaction, adjustment
disorder and dissociative disorder, are better understood as broad-level formulations,
implying primarily psychosocial rather than medical/biological causes.
Among a number of new developments is the concept of ‘trauma-informed’ services in the

USA (Harris & Fallot, 2001). These are based on the recognition that violence, trauma and
abuse are causal factors across the whole range of psychiatric presentations and need a
common, trans-diagnostic approach grounded in a different model of service delivery.
Although the model has yet to make an impact in the UK, it implies a much greater role
for formulation-based categorisation of mental distress.

14. Summary and recommendations
1. Best practice psychological formulation is a highly skilled process that combines
scientific principles with intuition and reflectiveness. It serves a range of purposes in
psychological work with individuals, carers, teams and organisations, and has the
potential to enhance core aspects of clinical work across roles and specialties.
It helps to ensure that our interventions are evidence-based by linking theory with
practice. It can be seen as a prime example of ‘level 3 skills’ in action.
2. A distinguishing characteristic of psychological formulation is its sophisticated,
multiple-model perspective which integrates theory and evidence from
psychological, biological, social/societal, and cultural domains through a shared
understanding of their personal meaning to the service user.
3. Clinical psychologists receive the most in-depth training in formulation, and are
well-placed to promote its use through practice, teaching, supervision, consultancy
and research.
4. Emerging evidence suggests that formulation is highly valued by other MDT
members. Further research into the impact of formulation on team functioning and
on the quality of care is needed.
5. Formulation also has the potential to promote collaborative work with service users
by enhancing the therapeutic relationship and increasing their sense of meaning,
agency and hope. More research is needed into service user and carer experiences
of formulation in order to ensure that it is used sensitively, respectfully and
productively.
6. Formulation can facilitate culture change by promoting a more psychosocial
perspective in services as a whole. New evidence about common psychosocial causal
factors across psychiatric diagnostic categories suggests the potential for formulation
to take a more central role in mental health settings, including the development of
formulation-based categorisation systems.
7. Although much of the theory and research on which formulation draws is firmly
established, to date there is only limited evidence to support it as a specific
intervention in its own right. This is a significant gap that needs to be filled.
8. Culturally-sensitive formulation is another underdeveloped area which is ripe for
research. This, along with other aspects of formulation, is recommended for clinical
psychology trainees’ doctoral projects.
9. Clinical psychologists need to ensure that formulation has a central place in
electronic records so that it can be integrated into care packages and pathways.
10. The checklists in this document are recommended as a means of enhancing good
practice in clinical work, training, supervision, consultancy, audit and research in
the field of formulation.

15. Relevant BPS documents
These guidelines should be read in conjunction with the following documents.
Division of Clinical Psychology (2000). Clinical psychology and case notes: Guidance on good
practice. Leicester: British Psychological Society. http://goo.gl/Pwzt7
Division of Clinical Psychology (2008). Clinical psychologists and electronic records:

The new reality. Leicester: British Psychological Society. http://goo.gl/IxjHb
Division of Clinical Psychology (2010). The core purpose and philosophy of the profession.
Leicester: British Psychological Society. http://goo.gl/RXi8K
Division of Clinical Psychology (2010). Clinical psychology leadership development framework.

Leicester: British Psychological Society. http://goo.gl/YOhuD
British Psychological Society (2009). Code of ethics and conduct. Leicester: British
Psychological Society. http://goo.gl/RLwDU
Newton, S. (2008). Record keeping: Guidance on good practice. Leicester: British Psychological
Society. http://goo.gl/EcVqH
Division of Clinical Psychology (2001). Working in teams. Leicester: British Psychological

Society. http://goo.gl/3sfiQ
Onyett, S. (2007). Working psychologically in teams. Leicester: The British Psychological

Society.

Appendix 1:
Checklist of good practice in the use of formulation
This checklist summarises the principles of recommended best practice in formulation and
formulating. The phrase ‘service user’ should be taken to encompass families/carers where
appropriate.
As noted in the main body of the guidelines, while these principles and standards will be
broadly relevant to formulation used in a more partial, informal or evolving way, for
obvious reasons it will not always be possible, necessary or appropriate to incorporate them
in full. Clinical judgement must be exercised in making these decisions. However, the
criteria can still be seen as a useful reference point and checklist of good practice for all
stages and versions of formulation and formulating.
Clinical psychologists may use this checklist for the following purposes:
● Supporting and evaluating their clinical practice in relation to formulation, in order
to maintain the highest standards throughout their careers.
● Aiding supervision and appraisal within the profession.
● Informing supervision and consultation to other professionals and to teams.
● Teaching and assessing trainees on clinical psychology doctorate courses.
● Teaching and training with other professional groups.
● Checking the quality of formulations for inclusion in records and other paperwork.
● As psychology leads and managers, for auditing psychology services.
● As a basis for research into formulation, either clinician-led or jointly with service
users.
Rationale for audit
Date ................................................................................................................................................
Clinician’s name ............................................... Job title...............................................................
Assessor’s name ............................................... Job title...............................................................
Brief description of the area being audited.................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................

Characteristics of the formulation
Standard Comments
met?
Grounded in an appropriate level and breadth of assessment
Based on psychological theory, evidence and principles
Informed by a range of models and/or causal factors
Integrates, not just lists, the models and causal factors
Makes theoretical sense
Includes service user’s strengths and achievements
Important aspects of the history and the problems are
accounted for
Indicates how the main difficulties may relate to each other
Suggests explanations for the development of the main
difficulties, at this time and in these situations
The personal meaning to the service user is an integrating
factor (either directly or through an indirect or
‘Best Interest’ procedure)
Provides a basis for making decisions about
intervening/moving forward
Suggests how to prioritise interventions, if indicated
Can be used to make and test predictions, including risks
Can be used to anticipate responses to the intervention,
including setbacks
Can be used to set goals and desired outcomes
Is not premised on a functional psychiatric diagnosis
(e.g. schizophrenia, personality disorder)
Is person-specific not problem-specific
Is culturally sensitive
Is expressed in accessible language
Takes a non-blaming stance towards service user and others
Considers the possible role of trauma and abuse
Includes the impact and personal meaning of medical and
other health care interventions
Considers possible role of services in compounding
the difficulties
Informed by awareness of service/organisational factors
Informed by awareness of social/societal factors
Has clear links backward to the assessment and forward to
the intervention

Characteristics of formulating: The clinician
Standard Comments
met?
Is clear about who the formulation is for
(individual, family, team, etc.)
Is clear about who has the ‘problem’
Is clear about who are the stakeholders and their interests
Is respectful of the service user/team’s view of what is
accurate/helpful
Constructs the formulation collaboratively with
service user/team
Paces the development and sharing of the formulation
appropriately
Can provide a rationale for choices within formulation
(integrative, single model or partial)
Is reflective about own values and assumptions

Appendix 2:
Professional guidelines and criteria in relation to formulation
Division of Clinical Psychology (2010):
‘Core purpose and philosophy of the profession’
‘Psychological formulation is the summation and integration of the knowledge that is
acquired by this assessment process that may involve psychological, biological and systemic
factors and procedures. The formulation will draw on psychological theory and research to
provide a framework for describing a client’s problem or needs, how it developed and is
being maintained. Because of their particular training in the relationship of theory to
practice, clinical psychologists will be able to draw on a number of models (bio-psycho-
social) to meet needs or support decision making and so a formulation may comprise a
number of provisional hypotheses. This provides the foundation from which actions may
derive… Psychological intervention, if considered appropriate, is based upon the
formulation.’
Core competencies of a clinical psychologist:

● psychological assessment;
● psychological formulation;
● psychological intervention;
● audit and evaluation;
● research;
● personal and professional skills;
● communication and teaching skills;
● service delivery skills;
● transferable skills.
Health Professions Council (2009) criteria:

● Be able to develop psychological formulations using the outcomes of assessment, drawing on
theory, research and explanatory models.
● Be able to use psychological formulations to plan appropriate interventions that take the client’s
perspective into account.
● Be able to use psychological formulations with clients to facilitate their understanding of their
experience.
● Be able to use psychological formulations to assist multi-professional communication and the
understanding of clients and their care.
● Be able, on the basis of psychological formulation, to implement psychological therapy or other
interventions appropriate to the presenting problem and to the psychological and social
circumstances of the client.
● Be able to decide how to assess, formulation and intervene psychologically from a range of
possible models and modes of intervention with clients and/or service systems.
● Be able to use professional and research skills in work with clients based on a scientist-
practitioner and reflective-practitioner model that incorporates a cycle of assessment,
formulation, intervention and evaluation.

Accreditation through partnership handbook (2010):
Guidance for clinical psychology programmes
2.1 Required learning outcomes
1. The skills, knowledge and values to develop working alliances with clients, including
individuals, carers and/or services, in order to carry out psychological assessment,
develop a formulation based on psychological theories and knowledge, carry out
psychological interventions, evaluate their work and communicate effectively with
clients, referrers and others, orally, electronically and in writing.
2.2 Learning outcomes
3. Clinical and research skills that demonstrate work with clients and systems based on
a scientist-practitioner and reflective-practitioner model that incorporates a cycle of
assessment, formulation, intervention and evaluation.
2.3.1 Transferable skills
1. Deciding, using a broad evidence and knowledge base, how to assess, formulate and
intervene psychologically, from a range of possible models and modes of
intervention with clients, carers and service systems.
2.3.3 Psychological formulation
Developing formulations of presenting problems or situations which integrate information

from assessments within a coherent framework that draws upon psychological theory and
evidence and which incorporates interpersonal, societal, cultural and biological factors.
2. Using formulations with clients to facilitate their understanding of their experience.
3. Using formulations to plan appropriate interventions that take the client’s

perspective into account.
4. Using formulations to assist multi-professional communication, and the

understanding of clients and their care.
5. Revising formulations in the light of ongoing intervention and when necessary

reformulating the problem.

2.3.4 Psychological intervention
1. On the basis of a formulation, implementing psychological therapy or other

interventions appropriate to the presenting problem and to the psychological and
social circumstances of the client(s), and to do this in a collaborative manner with:
● individuals;
● couples, families or groups;
● services/organisations.
2. Understanding therapeutic techniques and processes as applied when working with

a range of different individuals in distress, including those who experience
difficulties related to: anxiety, mood, adjustment to adverse circumstances or life
events, eating, psychosis and use of substances, and those with somatoform,
psychosexual, developmental, personality, cognitive and neurological presentations.
Clinical Psychology Leadership Development Framework (2010)

‘Clinical drivers’ for all levels of the profession include:
To sensitively and confidently lead on psychological assessment and formulation in teams.
‘Use of leadership skills’ includes:
Trainee: Take a lead in MDT meetings regarding psychological formulation of a client’s care.
Qualified clinical psychologist: Lead on psychological formulation within your team.
Consultant clinical psychologist: Ensure psychological formulation work is appropriately shared.
‘Outcome for practitioners’: Show psychological formulation skills that integrate social, cultural,
religious, ethnic factors as well as age, gender and ability level.
NB: The first criterion also applies to health psychologists and educational psychologists,
while counselling psychologists must be able to ‘make formulations of a range of
presentations’ and ‘be able to formulate clients’ concerns within the chosen therapeutic
models’. Sports and exercise psychologists must ‘be able to formulate clients’ concerns
within the chosen intervention models’ and forensic psychologists must ‘be able to use
psychological formulations to assist multi-professional communication and the
understanding, development and learning of service users.’

Appendix 3: Formulation and research
What we know so far is:
Most of the limited body of available research focuses on establishing whether formulation
is reliable. A review of research using standardised methods to assess inter-rater reliability
in psychodynamic formulations found moderate-to-good agreement (Luborsky & Diguer,
1998). A review of cognitive case formulation research found more mixed results for inter-
rater reliability, concluding that it was ‘modest at best’ (Bieling & Kuyken, 2003, p.52).
The emerging consensus is that reliability is compromised as clinicians move from
descriptive to more inferential levels. However, it is unclear whether problems in
establishing reliability are due to difficulties in the process, such as the use of heuristics
that affect clinical judgement (see Dumont, 1993), or to methodological issues, such as the
absence of information available to practitioners in normal service conditions (including
the possibility of developing the formulation in collaboration with the client). Moreover, as
Bieling and Kuyken (2003) concede, reliability does not imply validity. It is unclear how,
if at all, psychologists reliably formulating in the same way relates to the ‘truth’ or accuracy
of the formulation. In addition, formulation could be reliable and valid but have no impact
in terms of helping the client; conversely, it could be unreliable and invalid but lead to
improved outcomes.
For these reasons, another strand of research has tried to establish whether formulation
leads to positive change for clients. A few studies (Jacobson et al., 1989; Emmelkamp et al.,
1994; Schulte et al., 1992) have attempted to compare individualised treatments (which
are, by implication, formulation-driven) with standardised treatments (which are not).
Taken together, the results do not support claims that formulation improves outcomes,
although they are all under-powered studies from which little can be safely concluded.
Furthermore, it is unclear how closely the individualised conditions in these studies
correspond to practice, since they were defined as treatment plans that combined the
standardised components more flexibly.
Qualitative data from structured interviews suggest that clients are ambivalent about
formulation. As finding formulations helpful, encouraging and reassuring, and increasing
trust in their psychologist, clients can also experience them as saddening, upsetting,
frightening, overwhelming and worrying (Chadwick et al., 2003; Evans & Parry, 1996; Hess,
2001). A content analysis of 13 clients’ experience of formulation in CBT for psychosis
indicated that individuals’ reactions to receiving a formulation were complex, involving
apparently opposing emotional and cognitive responses, which changed over time
(Morberg Pain et al., 2008).
Professional guidelines recommend the use of a formulation based approach when

working within multidisciplinary teams (Division of Clinical Psychology, 2010).
Additionally, service users are reported to value the role of psychologists in teams as
offering an alternative perspective to the ‘medical model’ (Onyett, 2007). Christofides’
(2011) qualitative study of clinical psychologists working within adult mental health teams
found that formulation was used in many different ways, often unacknowledged, within

teams. Research on the use of formulation in teams has so far been limited to relatively
small practice-based studies in inpatient settings. For example, Kennedy et al. (2003),
evaluating a new inpatient service in which a key intervention was the collaborative
production of a formulation, concluded that it was a powerful systemic intervention in
itself which was regarded positively by both service users and staff. Summers (2006)
explored staff views of the impact of introducing psychological formulations to a high
dependency rehabilitation service and found that they believed that formulation benefited
care planning, staff-patient relationships, staff satisfaction and team-working, through
increasing understanding of patients, bringing together staff with different views and
encouraging more creative thinking. Wainwright and Bergin (2010) provided a similar
assessment of staff views on the effectiveness of introducing formulation meetings onto an
acute inpatient ward for older adults. Lake (2008) has described a team formulation
approach facilitated in regular meetings by a psychologist, which was evaluated very
positively by all staff (2008). Berry et al. (2009) found that formulation meetings resulted
in staff feeling increased confidence in their work, and perceiving service users more
positively and optimistically.
Among the conceptual and methodological hurdles to be overcome in researching

formulation are:
● Defining formulation (process versus event).
● Separating the effects of the formulation from the therapy of which it is an integral
part. (Although team formulations avoid this problem because they are by definition
separate from individual therapy; in fact therapy may not be a feature of the
intervention at all.)
● Deciding the terms in which formulation is evaluated. A narrative/personal
meaning approach would see ‘usefulness’ as a more appropriate criterion than
‘truth’, or reliability, validity etc., although ‘usefulness’ immediately raises the
questions: useful to whom? and how would this be assessed? On the other hand, the
‘truth’ perspective implies a consensus on what it means to say that a formulation is
‘valid’, and who makes this judgement. Suggestions for assessing the quality of
formulations have been made by Butler (1998) ‘Ten tests of a formulation’; Lane
(1990) ‘Stopthengo’ checklist; Kuyken (2006) ‘Evidence-based guidelines’; and
Persons (2008) ‘Five tests’.
Margison et al. (2000) have recommended that evidence for the effectiveness of therapy,
including formulation, should come from practice-based evidence as well as evidence-
based practice.

References
Anderson, P. & Fenichel, E. (1989). Serving culturally diverse families of infants and toddlers
with disabilities. Washington: National Center for Infant Programs.
Barham, P. & Hayward, R. (1995). Relocating madness: From the mental patient to the person.
London: Free Association Press.
Beck, J.S. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond. New York: Guilford Press.
Berger, M. (in press, a). On the record or off the record? Challenges for psychologists in
the age of the electronic clinical record – Part 1. Clinical Psychology Forum.
Berger, M. (in press, b). On the record or off the record? Challenges for psychologists in
the age of the electronic clinical record – Part 2. Clinical Psychology Forum.
Bentall, R. (2003). Madness explained: Psychosis and human nature. London, New York:
Penguin.
Berry, K., Barrowclough, C. & Wearden, A. (2009). A pilot study investigating the use of
psychological formulations to modify psychiatric staff perceptions of service users
with psychosis. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 37, 39–48.
Bieling, P.J. & Kuyken, W. (2003). Is cognitive case formulation science or science fiction?
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(1), 52–69.
Boyle, M. (2002). Schizophrenia: A scientific delusion? (2nd ed.). London, New York:
Routledge.
British Psychological Society (2010). Accreditation through partnership handbook: Guidance for
clinical psychology programmes. Leicester: British Psychological Society.
British Psychological Society (2011). Guidelines on the use of electronic health records. Leicester:
British Psychological Society.
Bruch, M. & Bond, F.W. (Eds.) (1998). Beyond diagnosis: Case formulation approaches in CBT.
Chichester: Wiley
Butler, G. (1998). Clinical formulation. In A.S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive
clinical psychology. Oxford: Pergamon.
Callcott, P. & Turkington, D. (2006). CBT for traumatic psychosis. In W. Larkin &
A.P. Morrison (Eds.), Trauma and psychosis: New directions for theory and therapy
(pp.222–238). Hove, New York: Routledge.
Chadwick, P., Williams, C. & Mackenzie, J. (2003). Impact of case formulation in cognitive
behaviour therapy for psychosis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 14(6), 671–680.
Christofides, S., Johnstone, L. & Musa, M. (2011). Chipping in: Clinical psychologists’
descriptions of their use of formulation in multi-disciplinary team working.
Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice.
Clarke, I. (2008). Pioneering a cross-diagnostic approach founded in cognitive science.
In I. Clarke & H. Wilson (Eds.), Cognitive behaviour therapy for acute inpatient mental
health units; Working with clients, staff and the milieu (pp.65–77). Hove: Routledge.

Cole, S. & Johnstone, L. (in press). How clinical psychologists understand formulation as
both a process and an event: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Psychology
and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice.
Corrie, S. & Lane, D.A. (2010). Constructing stories, telling tales: A guide to formulation in
applied psychology. London: Karnac.
Craven-Staines, S., Dexter-Smith, S. & Li, K. (2010). Integrating psychological formulations
into older people’s services – three years on (Part 3): Staff perceptions of
formulation meetings. PSIGE Newsletter, 112, 16–22.
Crellin, C. (1998). Origins and social contexts of the term ‘formulation’ in psychological
case reports. Clinical Psychology Forum, 112, 18–28.
Dallos, R., Wright, J., Stedmon, J. & Johnstone, L. (2006). Integrative formulation.
In L. Johnstone & R. Dallos (Eds.), Formulation in psychology and psychotherapy: Making
sense of people’s problems (pp.154–181). London, New York: Routledge.
Department of Health (2010). Liberating the NHS: An information revolution. Retrieved
8 November 2010, from: http://bit.ly/mbdiag2a
Division of Clinical Psychology (2010). Clinical Psychology: The core purpose and philosophy of
the profession. Leicester: British Psychological Society.
Dumont, F. (1993). Inferential heuristics in clinical problem formulation: Selective review
of their strengths and weaknesses. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24(2),
196–205.
Egan, G. (2006). The skilled helper. London: Thomson.
Ehlers, A., Clark, D.M., Hackmann, A., McManus, F. & Fennell. M. (2005). Cognitive
therapy for post-traumatic disorder: Development and evaluation. Behaviour, Research
and Therapy, 38, 413–431.
Emmelkamp, P.M.G., Bouman, T.K. & Blaauw, E. (1994). Individual vs. standardised
therapy: A comparative evaluation with obsessive compulsive patients.
Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 1(2), 95–100.
Evans, G. & Parry, J. (1996). The impact of reformulation in cognitive-analytic therapy with
difficult-to-help clients. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 3(2), 109–117.
Fernando, S. (2002). Mental health, race and culture (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Freud, S. & Breuer, J. (1974). Studies on hysteria. Reading: Pelican Books. (Original work
published 1895.)
Goldfried, M.R. (1995). From cognitive-behaviour therapy to psychotherapy integration. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Hagan, T. & Smail, D. (1997a). Power-mapping 1. Background and basic methodology.
Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 257–267.
Hagan, T. & Smail, D. (1997b). Power-mapping 2. Practical application: The example of
child sexual abuse. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 269–284.
Harper, D. & Moss, D. (2003). A different kind of chemistry? Reformulating ‘formulation.’
Clinical Psychology, 25, 6–10.

Harper, D. & Spellman, D. (2006). Social constructionist formulation: Telling a different
story. In L. Johnstone & R. Dallos (Eds.), Formulation in psychology and psychotherapy:
Making sense of people’s problems (pp.98–125). London, New York: Routledge.
Harris, M. & Fallot, R. (2001). Using trauma theory to design service systems. New Directions
for Mental Health Services, 89. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Health Professions Council (2009). Standards of proficiency: Practitioner psychologists. London:
Health Professions Council.
Herman, J. (2001). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence, from domestic abuse to political
terror. London: Pandora
Hess, S.M. (2001). The effects of a case formulation approach on process and outcome in the
treatment of depression. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
Holland, S. (1992). From social abuse to social action: A neighbourhood psychotherapy
and social action project for women. Changes, 10(2), 146–153.
Honos-Webb, L. & Leitner, L.M. (2001). How using the DSM causes damage: A client’s
report. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41(4), 36–56.
Hood, N. (2009). The hidden solution? Staff experiences, views and understanding of the role of
psychological formulation in multi-disciplinary teams. Unpublished doctoral thesis,
Bristol Clinical Psychology Doctorate.
Ingram, B.L. (2006). Clinical case formulations: Matching the integrative treatment plan to the
client. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Jacobson, N.S., Schmaling, K.B., Holtzworth-Muroe, A., Katt, J.C., Wood, L.F. & Follette,
V.M. (1989). Research-structured vs. clinically flexible versions of social learning-
based family therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 27, 173–180.
Johnstone, L. (1999). Adverse psychological effects of ECT. Journal of Mental Health, 8(1),
69–85.
Johnstone, L. (2002). Users and abusers of psychiatry: A critical look at psychiatric practice
(2nd ed.). London, New York: Routledge.
Johnstone, L. & Dallos, R. (2006). Introduction to formulation. In L. Johnstone &
R. Dallos (Eds.), Formulation in psychology and psychotherapy: Making sense of people’s
problems (pp.1–16). London, New York: Routledge.
Johnstone, L. (2006). Controversies and debates about formulation. In L. Johnstone &
R. Dallos (Eds.), Formulation in psychology and psychotherapy: Making sense of people’s
problems (pp.208–231). London, New York: Routledge.
Johnstone, L. & Dallos, R. (Eds.) (2006). Formulation in psychology and psychotherapy:
Making sense of people’s problems. London, New York: Routledge.
Kahn, M. (1997). Between therapist and client: The new therapeutic relationship. New York:
St Martin’s Press Inc.
Kanwar, S. & Whomsley, S. (2011). Working with Pakistani service users and their families:
A practitioner’s guide. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust.

Karlsen, S. (2007). Ethnic inequalities in health: The impact of racism. Better Health Briefing 3.
London: Race Equality Foundation.
Keating, F., Robertson, D., Francis, F. & McCulloch, A. (2002). Breaking the circles of fear:
A review of the relationship between mental health services and African and Caribbean
communities. London: The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health.
Kennedy, P. & Llewelyn, S. (2001). Does the future belong to the scientist-pracitioner?
The Psychologist, 2, 74–78.
Kennedy, F., Smalley, M. & Harris, T. (2003). Clinical psychology for inpatient settings:
Principles for development and practice. Clinical Psychology Forum, 30, 21–24.
Kennedy, F. (2009). The use of formulation in inpatient settings. In I. Clarke & H. Wilson
(Eds.), Cognitive behaviour therapy for acute inpatient mental health units: Working with
clients, staff and the milieu (pp.39–63.) Hove: Routledge.
Kinderman, P., Sellwood, W. & Tai, S. (2008). Policy implications of a psychological model
of mental disorder. Journal of Mental Health, 17(1), 93–103.
Kuyken, W. (2006). Evidence-based case formulation: Is the emperor clothed?
In N. Tarrier (Ed.), Case formulation in cognitive behaviour therapy: The treatment of
challenging and complex cases (pp.12–35). London, New York: Routledge.
Kuyken, W., Padesky, C.A. & Dudley, R. (2009). Collaborative case conceptualisation. New York:
Guilford Press.
Lake, N. (2008). Developing skills in consultation 2: A team formulation approach.
Clinical Psychology Forum, 186, 18–24.
Lane, D.A. (1990). The impossible child. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Larkin, W. & Morrison, A.P. (2006). Trauma and psychosis: New directions for theory and therapy.
London, New York: Routledge.
Lewis-Fernandez, R. & Diaz, N. (2002). The cultural formulation: A method for assessing
cultural factors affecting the clinical encounter. Psychiatric Quarterly, 73, 271–295.
Lu, W., Mueser, K. et al. (2011). Post-traumatic reactions to psychosis. Schizophrenia Research,
127, 66–75.
Luborsky, L. & Diguer, L. (1998). The reliability of the CCRT measure: Results from eight
samples. In L. Luborsky & P. Crits-Christoph (Eds.), Understanding transference:
The core conflictual relationship theme method (2nd ed., pp.97–108). New York:
Basic Books.
Malan, D.H. (1979). Individual psychotherapy and the science of psychodynamics. London:
Butterworths.
Management Advisory Service (MAS) (1989). Review of clinical psychology services. London:
Department of Health.
Margison, F.R., McGrath, G., Barkham, M., Mellor Clark, J., Audin, K. ,Connell, J. & Evans,
C. (2000). Measurement and psychotherapy: Evidence-based practice and practice-
based evidence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177,123–130.

Martindale, B.V. (2007.) Psychodynamic contributions to early intervention in psychosis.
Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 13, 34–42.
May, R. (2011.) Relating to alternative realities. In M. Romme & S. Escher (Eds.),
Psychosis as a personal crisis: An experience-based approach (pp.140–152).
London, New York: Routledge.
Meadon, A. & Van Marle, S. (2008). When the going gets tougher: The importance of
long-term supportive psychotherapy in psychosis. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 14,
42–49.
Mehta, S. & Farina, A. (1997). Is being ‘sick’ really better? Effect of the disease model of
mental disorder on stigma. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16(4), 405–419.
Miller, J.& McClelland, L. (2006). Social inequalities formulation: Mad, bad and dangerous
to know. In L. Johnstone & R. Dallos (Eds.), Formulation in psychology and
psychotherapy: Making sense of people’s problems (pp.126–153). London, New York:
Routledge
Morberg Pain, C., Chadwick, P. & Abba, N. (2008). Clients’ experience of case formulation
in CBT for psychosis. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 13, 34–42.
Moskowitz, A., Schafer, I. & Dorahy, M.J. (Eds.) (2008). Psychosis, trauma and dissociation:
Emerging perspectives on severe psychopathology. Chichester: Wiley.
Norcross, J.C. & Goldfried, M.R. (Eds.) (2005). Handbook of psychotherapy integration.
New York: Basic Books.
Onyett, S. (2007). Working psychologically in teams. Leicester: The British Psychological
Society.
Palmer, S. & Woolfe. R. (2000). Integrative and eclectic counselling and psychotherapy.
London: Sage.
Persons, J. (2008). The case formulation approach to cognitive-behaviour therapy. New York:
Guilford Press.
Ray, A. (2008). Understanding reflective practice as part of the process of formulation.
Unpublished doctoral thesis. Bristol Doctorate in Clinical Psychology.
Rogers, A., Pilgrim, D. & Lacey, R. (1993). Experiencing psychiatry: Users’ views of services.
London: Macmillan/MIND.
Rose, S. (2001). Moving on from old dichotomies. British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 3–7.
Royal College of Psychiatrists. (2010). A competency-based curriculum for specialist core training
in psychiatry. Retrieved 5 October 2011, from:
www.rcpsych.ac.uk/training/curriculum2010.aspx
Ryle, A. (1995). Cognitive analytic therapy. Chichester: Wiley.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Schore, A.N. (2009). Self and systems: Relational trauma and the developing right brain.
Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1159, 189–203.

Schulte, D., Kunzel, R., Pepping, G., & Schulte-Bahrenberg, T. (1992). Tailor-made vs.
standardised therapy of phobic patients. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy,
14(6), 7–92.
Skinner, P. & Toogood, R. (Eds.) (2010). Clinical psychology leadership development framework.
Leicester: British Psychological Society.
Strawbridge, S. (2010). Prologue: Telling stories. In S. Corrie & D.A. Lane (Eds.),
Constructing stories, telling tales: A guide to formulation in applied psychology.
London: Karnac.
Summers, A. (2006). Psychological formulations in psychiatric care: Staff views on their
impact. Psychiatric Bulletin, 30, 341–343.
Thomas, S. (2008). An evaluation of the use of formulation in core assessments produced by CMHT
staff. Unpublished service evaluation, Bristol Clinical Psychology Doctorate.
Wainwright, N. & Bergin, L. (2010). Introducing psychological formulations in an acute
older people’s inpatient mental health ward: A service evaluation of staff views.
PSIGE Newsletter, 112, 38–45.
Walton, M. (2011). Complex case consultation forums: A thematic analysis.
Clinical Psychology Forum, 223, 10–14.
Webster, A. (2002). Improving psychology services to diverse communities. South London and the
Maudsley NHS Trust.
Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do
better. London: Allen Lane.
Weerasekeera, P. (1996). Multiperspective case formulation: A step towards treatment integration.
Malabar, Fl: Krieger.
Wells, A. (2004). A cognitive model of GAD. In R.G. Heimberg, C.L.Turk & D.S. Mennin
(Eds.), Generalised anxiety disorder: Advances in research and practice (pp.164–186.)
New York: Guilford Press.
Whomsley, S. (2009). Team case formulation.. In C. Cupitt (Ed.), Reaching out:
The psychology of assertive outreach (pp.95–118). London: Taylor & Francis.
World Health Organisation Office for Europe (2009). Mental health, resilience and
inequalities. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

The British Psychological Society
St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UK
Tel: 0116 254 9568 Fax 0116 227 1314 E-mail: mail@bps.org.uk Website: www.bps.org.uk
Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered Charity No 229642 REP100/12.2011

Formulation Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formulation Guidelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formulation Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of psychological formulation?

What is the purpose of psychological formulation?

What are some principles of formulation in clinical psychology?

What are some principles of formulation in clinical psychology?

Good Practice Guidelines on the use of

If you have problems reading this document and would like it in a

Printed and published by the British Psychological Society.

Invited comments were received from:

Other expert commentators were:

Service user and carer commentators were:

Good Practice Guidelines on the use of psychological formulation 1

2 Division of Clinical Psychology

Current evidence on the theory and practice of formulation, which is an under-researched

Good Practice Guidelines on the use of psychological formulation 3

4 Division of Clinical Psychology

Management Advisory Service (MAS) (1989). Review of clinical psychology services.

Health Professions Council (HPC) (2009). Standards of proficiency: Practitioner psychologists.

The recommendations from these documents can be summarised as follows:

Good Practice Guidelines on the use of psychological formulation 5

Clinical psychologist Gillian Butler (1998, p.2) puts this succinctly:

6 Division of Clinical Psychology

Good Practice Guidelines on the use of psychological formulation 7

The main purpose of a formulation in any setting is:

8 Division of Clinical Psychology

Good Practice Guidelines on the use of psychological formulation 9

A partial formulation and a full formulation.

Another type of partial formulation is evident in the formulation-informed thinking

10 Division of Clinical Psychology

Good Practice Guidelines on the use of psychological formulation 11

The following principles of psychological formulation in clinical psychology are widely

(NB: ‘service user’ will include carers if a systemic/family formulation is employed.)

12 Division of Clinical Psychology

Person-centred and problem-specific formulation

Multiple-model and single-model formulation

Good Practice Guidelines on the use of psychological formulation 13

Causal factors that are sometimes neglected or downplayed in clinical psychologists’

14 Division of Clinical Psychology

Integration-through-personal-meaning formulations and list-of-factors

Good Practice Guidelines on the use of psychological formulation 15

Formulation and diagnosis

The use of so-called ‘functional’ psychiatric diagnoses such as schizophrenia, bipolar

16 Division of Clinical Psychology

Psychiatric formulation and psychological formulation

Good Practice Guidelines on the use of psychological formulation 17

18 Division of Clinical Psychology

In relation to psychiatric services in particular, it is important to remember that medical

Research suggests that, in keeping with the general principles of formulating, a

Good Practice Guidelines on the use of psychological formulation 19

The community/social inequalities/human rights perspective is often poorly integrated

The implication is that clinical psychologists need to:

20 Division of Clinical Psychology

Formulation has potential limitations and drawbacks. It can be influenced by decision-

Formulation can be used in insensitive or disempowering ways (Johnstone, 2006). There is

Good Practice Guidelines on the use of psychological formulation 21

Reflectiveness is seen by many clinical psychologists as an essential aspect of formulating,

As discussed above, awareness of the service/organisational and social/societal contexts of

22 Division of Clinical Psychology

Research into formulation

The lack of a service user perspective is a major gap in the literature, as is an

Formulation and electronic records.