Common Factors Assessment — The Bruges Model

A unique meta-frame of the Bruges Model: the therapist regularly assesses three blocks of factors that determine effectiveness. Client factors (resources, motivation, history of changes) — 40% of the contribution. Relationship factors (alliance, acceptance, empathy) — 30%. Hope and expectation factors — 15%. Specific techniques — only 15%. This orients the therapist: if the work is not moving, it is most likely the alliance that is broken, not the "wrong" technique that has been chosen.

Step-by-step guide

Assess client resources at the start of the work: "What in this person works for change?"
Monitor the quality of the alliance: regularly ask for feedback on the course of the session
Work with hope: "How much do you believe that change is possible?"
Match techniques to the client, not the other way round
On stalling — check which of the three blocks is broken: resources, alliance, or hope

When to use

As a meta-perspective on the whole therapeutic work — a constant background
At moments when therapy is not moving — diagnosis through this frame
When you sense the techniques are not working
In supervision or self-supervision to understand the dynamics of the case

Key phrases

How does our work feel? What is useful, what is not?

How much do you believe that change is possible?

Follow-up questions

What in you helps you move forward?

Is there something in how we work that you would like to change?

What in today's meeting was most useful?

Alternative phrasings

If you were rating our work on a scale from 0 to 10 — where would we be? What can be improved?

What do you need from me for our work to be more useful?

Warnings

⚠️ Do not fetishize technique — if the alliance is broken, no technique will help
⚠️ Restore the alliance before continuing the work with the content
⚠️ Assess regularly, not only in crisis — alliance problems often go unnoticed gradually

Source: Isebaert, 2016; Wampold & Lambert (common factors research)