Six-Part Story Method (Lahad)

1. Introduction

Version followed: Mooli Lahad's Six-Part Story Method (6PSM) as summarised and scripted by Kim Dent-Brown (PhD thesis, University of Hull, 2004; Dent-Brown & Wang, 2004): six drawn frames, uninterrupted telling, then inquiry, analysed with Lahad's BASIC Ph channel tally. Where frame order differs between sources this is named below. Lahad's own primary texts (1992, 1993 with Ayalon, 2013 edited volume) are not drawn on; their content is reported only as Dent-Brown and Zabłocka-Żytka & Lahad (2025) cite it.

What it is. A projective story-making procedure, not a therapy. The client divides a sheet into six spaces, draws one element of an invented story in each (a main character and setting, a task or problem, what helps, what gets in the way, how the character copes, what happens afterwards), tells the story, and answers the clinician's questions. The story is then read for the author's coping style. [source: Dent-Brown 2004 thesis pp. 24, 31; Dent-Brown & Wang 2004 Appendix A]
Origins. Lahad developed it from Alida Gersie's Story Evocation Techniques, which he and Ofra Ayalon learned in the early 1980s, while working to build resilience with schoolchildren in northern Galilee, an area under frequent attack. It also draws on Propp's morphology of fairy tales and Greimas's actant model. First printed description: Lahad 1992; second: Lahad & Ayalon 1993. Dent-Brown & Wang describe it as developed in Israel in collaboration with Gersie. [source: Dent-Brown 2004 thesis pp. 25, 27–31; Dent-Brown & Wang 2004 p. 1] The commonly given dating "early 1990s" matches the first print descriptions; the method's development began earlier. [synthesis]
Core idea of how it works. The underlying assumption, in Lahad's words as quoted by Dent-Brown, is that "the coping elements in the story might give insight into the preferred coping strategies" of the author (thesis p. 32). Lahad's BASIC Ph model sorts coping into six channels: Belief and values, Affect, Social, Imagination, Cognition, Physiology/physical. Most people use several channels but prefer one or more; helpers who meet the person in their preferred channel, then help widen the repertoire, support resilience. [source: Zabłocka-Żytka & Lahad 2025; Dent-Brown 2004 thesis pp. 25, 51]
What it is not. Dent-Brown notes the 6PSM was not intended to be therapeutic in itself (thesis p. 31), and Pendzik distinguishes the 6PSM (a story-elicitation technique) from BASIC Ph (an analytic lens); either can be applied without the other (cited in thesis p. 25). It is not a diagnostic test for any disorder or for abuse. [source: Dent-Brown 2004 thesis]
Validity in one line. Before 2004 no reliability or validity study had been published; Lahad himself acknowledged that reliability between judges is problematic. Dent-Brown & Wang's pilot produced one usable eight-item pessimism/failure scale (test-retest r = .75, n = 17; inter-rater r = .80; alpha = .96) that distinguished stories by people with a borderline personality disorder diagnosis, with cross-validation still required. No other 6PSM scale showed adequate stability. [source: Dent-Brown & Wang 2004 pp. 1, 4–8; thesis pp. 17, 26, 32] Treat all readings as hypotheses to explore with the client.

2. Framework

The 6PSM is a single structured procedure rather than a phased therapy. The stages below are the administration sequence plus what clinicians do with the result. [source: Dent-Brown 2004 thesis p. 24; Dent-Brown & Wang 2004 Appendix A; stages D–E from Zabłocka-Żytka & Lahad 2025 and Brighton Therapy Partnership 2020]

Professional frame. The method is taught on UK pre-registration dramatherapy courses (thesis p. 16), and Dent-Brown trained community mental health team nurses and occupational therapists to administer it for a personality-disorder assessment battery (Dent-Brown & Wang p. 2; thesis pp. 32, 43). There is no specific 6PSM certification identified in the sources. [uncertain] Administration is simple; interpretation and therapeutic follow-up belong to a qualified clinician working within their registration: in the UK, dramatherapists register with the HCPC and belong to BADth; in the US, NADTA credentials Registered Drama Therapists (RDT); psychologists, psychotherapists and other registered mental health professionals may use it as one input within assessments they are already competent to run. Do not use it as a stand-alone basis for diagnosis, risk decisions or forensic or safeguarding conclusions. [synthesis]

Materials and physical safety. A sheet of A4 paper and coloured pens (Dent-Brown & Wang Appendix A); six coloured pencils if you use the colour-coding analysis (Brighton Therapy Partnership 2020). Use non-toxic, washable pens, especially with children; no other physical hazards are involved. [synthesis]

Stage	Goal	Format	Move on when
A. Framing and consent	Client understands it is an invented story, not a test of drawing, and agrees to take part	Individual (usual) or group; a few minutes	Client has agreed and has paper and pens
B. Six frames drawn	Elicit six story elements, one per space	Clinician gives each frame prompt in turn; client draws (or writes)	All six spaces have something in them, even a word or scribble
C. Telling	Client tells the whole story using the drawings as an aide-memoire, without interruption	Client speaks; clinician listens and notes	Client signals the story is finished
D. Inquiry	Clarify and deepen detail: each picture, the main character's thoughts and feelings, the moral	Clinician asks questions about each frame and the whole	Enough detail to identify coping elements
E. Analysis	Tally BASIC Ph channels; optionally rate manifest content (e.g. pessimism/failure)	Clinician, ideally after the session; optionally a second rater	Tentative profile formed
F. Use	Share hypotheses with the client; choose interventions that fit preferred channels; plan to widen weaker ones; repeat later to monitor	Following sessions	Ongoing

Session count and length. One session for stages A–D; sources give no fixed time. [uncertain] Dent-Brown's research protocol ran the story within a concurrent-measures session of no more than two hours (thesis pp. 75–77). In practice allow roughly 30–50 minutes for drawing, telling and inquiry. [synthesis]
Repetition. Dent-Brown collected a second story one month later for test-retest (thesis p. 75); in Israel it was used to monitor emotional wellbeing on a paediatric oncology ward (thesis p. 31); a US partial-hospitalisation programme used six-piece story making daily with children aged 6–13 to support risk assessment (Culligan 2018, abstract only). [source: as named]
Frame order (version note). Dent-Brown's thesis summary of Lahad puts helpers third and obstacles fourth; Dent-Brown & Wang's appendix puts obstacles third and helpers fourth; Brighton Therapy Partnership puts helpers before obstacles and names the frames main character, mission, who or what can help, obstacles, how the character meets the challenge, outcome. This guide follows the thesis order (helpers before obstacles). [uncertain: which order Lahad's 1992 text uses was not verified]

3. Guiding principles

[source: Dent-Brown 2004 thesis pp. 22–26, 31–32, 44, 51; Dent-Brown & Wang 2004 pp. 1–8; Zabłocka-Żytka & Lahad 2025; one-line practical meanings are synthesis unless sourced]

Story, not self-report. The client invents a fictional story; projection happens through the fiction. Practical meaning: never ask the client to draw themselves or their own problem; keep prompts about "the main character".
Neutral stimulus, dynamic story. Dent-Brown & Wang contrast it with the TAT (more neutral stimulus) and House-Tree-Person (produces a moving story, not a static picture). Practical meaning: give no pictures, themes or examples that steer content.
Drawing is an aide-memoire, not art. Practical meaning: stick figures, symbols or words are fine; never comment on drawing quality.
Uninterrupted telling first, questions after. Practical meaning: hold all questions until the story is finished, then go frame by frame. [source: thesis p. 24]
Stick to the script when consistency matters. In research, clinicians kept exactly to a script (thesis p. 74). Practical meaning: use the same prompts every time you administer it, especially if you will compare stories over time.
Rate what is there before inferring. Dent-Brown's ratings deliberately addressed manifest content, not interpretation (Dent-Brown & Wang p. 3). Practical meaning: describe the story's actual events and outcome before forming any hypothesis about the author.
Coping, not pathology, is the original target. BASIC Ph was developed with ordinary populations; Dent-Brown questions its fit for people with few coping strategies (thesis p. 51). Practical meaning: read for strengths and resources first; be cautious applying the channel tally to severely impaired clients.
Everyone uses several channels; most prefer some. Practical meaning: report a profile, not a single label. [source: Zabłocka-Żytka & Lahad 2025]
Meet the client in their channel, then widen. Channel mismatch between helper and person can itself become a stressor. Practical meaning: offer information to a cognitive coper, activity to a physical coper, meaning-making to a belief coper, then build a second channel. [source: Zabłocka-Żytka & Lahad 2025]
Interpretation is a hypothesis. Lahad acknowledged inter-judge reliability is problematic; Dent-Brown warns of the clinician's own projections and of the Barnum effect (thesis pp. 22–23, 26). Practical meaning: offer readings tentatively, invite the client's correction, and never present a reading as a finding.
Avoid circular reasoning. Dent-Brown found earlier reports used the same stories to diagnose and then to explain the diagnosis (thesis p. 44). Practical meaning: form diagnoses from validated measures and interview; use the story to enrich, not confirm.
Not diagnostic of abuse or disorder. Features assumed to indicate borderline personality disorder (being sick or needing rescue, lack of awareness of others' needs, abandonment) were as common in other people's stories (Dent-Brown & Wang pp. 6–7). Practical meaning: violent, bleak or rescue-themed stories are not evidence of abuse, trauma or a diagnosis.
Safety and safeguarding override the procedure. [synthesis] Practical meaning: if a client, especially a child, discloses real harm during telling or inquiry, step out of the fiction and follow your safeguarding procedure.

4. Intervention inventory

The published method has four procedural parts (framing, six frames, telling, inquiry) and one analytic method (BASIC Ph tally), plus a research rating scale and documented clinical uses of the result. Items 4.1–4.6 are the method as published; 4.7–4.15 are documented analysis methods, uses and variants; 4.16 is an optional extension that is not part of the published procedure. Exact wording of Lahad's prompts (Dent-Brown thesis Appendix 3) was not available; all example language below is illustrative unless quoted.

4.1 Framing and consent

Purpose / when: At the start of every administration, to set the fiction frame, reduce performance anxiety and obtain informed agreement (and assent from children). [source for framing as an invented story told after drawing: Dent-Brown & Wang 2004 Appendix A; consent steps: synthesis]
Steps:
1. Explain that you will ask the client to make up a story in six pictures, then tell it. Say why you are using it (part of getting to know how they cope; not a test with right answers). [synthesis]
2. Say plainly that drawing skill does not matter; matchstick figures, symbols or a word in a box are fine.
3. Say what happens to the sheet (kept in the record, shown to whom) and that they can stop at any point.
4. Children: explain in age-appropriate terms, get the child's assent and the parent's or carer's consent as your service requires, and tell the child beforehand that if they tell you someone is hurting them you will need to tell someone whose job is to keep them safe. [synthesis]
5. Hand over a blank A4 sheet and coloured pens; ask the client to divide it into six spaces (fold or draw lines). [source: thesis p. 24; Dent-Brown & Wang Appendix A]
Example language (illustrative): "I'd like us to make up a story together. You'll draw it in six boxes, one bit at a time, and then tell it to me. It's a made-up story, so there's no right or wrong, and how well you draw doesn't matter at all."
Watch for: Anxiety about drawing, wish to please, suspicion about being "analysed". It is working when the client starts the first frame without repeated reassurance.

4.2 Frame 1: the main character and setting

Purpose / when: Establishes the protagonist and the world in which the story begins. [source: thesis p. 24; Dent-Brown & Wang Appendix A]
Steps: Ask the client to draw, in the first space, the main character of a story in the place where the story starts. The character may be a person, animal or anything else; leave the choice to the client. Wait until they finish before moving on.
Example language: Dent-Brown's script asks the client to "draw a picture or sketch of the main character" (thesis p. 56). Illustrative continuation: "…and show where they are when our story begins."
Watch for: A character who is plainly the client (e.g. same name, age, situation) signals low aesthetic distance; note it but do not challenge it here. A refusal to invent anyone is addressed in section 5.

4.3 Frame 2: the task or problem

Purpose / when: Elicits the challenge, mission or problem the character faces. [source: thesis p. 24 ("problem"); Dent-Brown & Wang Appendix A ("task"); Brighton Therapy Partnership 2020 ("mission")]
Steps: In the second space, ask for a picture of the task, mission or problem facing the main character.
Example language (illustrative): "In the second box, draw the job or problem your main character has to face."
Watch for: Whether the task is chosen or imposed, outward (a quest) or inward (a fear); these shape later reading of coping. [synthesis]

4.4 Frames 3 and 4: what helps and what gets in the way

Purpose / when: Elicits helpers and resources, then obstacles. Helpers often reveal social, belief, imaginative or practical resources; obstacles show what the author anticipates as threat. [order and content: thesis p. 24; Dent-Brown & Wang Appendix A gives obstacles before helpers; reading of helpers as resources: synthesis]
Steps: In the third space ask for who or what will help the main character (if anyone or anything); in the fourth, what gets in the way. If you use the Dent-Brown & Wang order, reverse these. Use the same order every time you administer it to the same client.
Example language (illustrative): "In the third box, draw who or what could help your character, if anything." "In the fourth box, draw what gets in the way."
Watch for: No helper at all, helpers who fail, or overwhelming obstacles are information, not pathology. Dent-Brown & Wang found a "helpfulness of others" scale had adequate inter-rater reliability but poor test-retest stability, so do not treat helper content as a stable trait. [source: Dent-Brown & Wang pp. 4–5]

4.5 Frames 5 and 6: how the character copes, and what happens next

Purpose / when: Frame 5 is the main action or turning point: how the character deals with the problem and whether they succeed or fail. Frame 6 is the aftermath or ending. These frames carry most of the coping and outcome information. [source: thesis p. 24; Dent-Brown & Wang Appendix A]
Steps: In the fifth space ask for the moment where the character deals with the task or obstacle; in the sixth, what happens afterwards (the ending, or what happens next if the story continues).
Example language (illustrative): "In the fifth box, draw how your character deals with it." "And in the last box, draw what happens afterwards."
Watch for: Outcome valence (positive, negative, win-win, bleak) is the only content shown to be stable over a month (Dent-Brown & Wang pp. 4–6). Note how the outcome is reached: by the character's own action, by others, by magic or chance, or not at all.

4.6 Uninterrupted telling, then inquiry

Purpose / when: Immediately after frame 6. The telling turns six pictures into a narrative in the client's own words; the inquiry gathers detail needed for analysis. [source: thesis p. 24; Dent-Brown & Wang Appendix A]
Steps:
1. Ask the client to tell the whole story using the pictures as reminders, adding as much detail as they like.
2. Do not interrupt, comment or ask questions during the telling. Write it down as close to verbatim as you can, or audio-record with consent (Dent-Brown taped stories for research, thesis p. 74).
3. When finished, go frame by frame asking open questions about each picture.
4. Ask about the main character's thoughts and feelings at the start (and, by extension, at the turning point and the end), and whether the story has a moral. [source: Dent-Brown & Wang Appendix A]
5. Close the fiction before moving to other work: thank the client and put the sheet aside. [synthesis]
Example language (illustrative): "Now tell me the whole story from the beginning, using your pictures." After: "What's happening in this picture?" "How is the main character feeling here, at the start?" "Does your story have a moral, or a message?"
Watch for: Keep questions inside the story ("What does the character think?"), not about the client ("Is that you?"), unless the client makes the link themselves. It is working when the client elaborates freely and the story gains detail about how the character thinks, feels, acts and relates. [synthesis]

4.7 BASIC Ph channel tally (Lahad's analysis)

Purpose / when: After the session, to form a hypothesis about the author's preferred and underused coping channels. [source: Dent-Brown 2004 thesis pp. 25, 51; channel definitions: Zabłocka-Żytka & Lahad 2025; colour-coding: Brighton Therapy Partnership 2020]
Steps:
1. Work from the drawings plus your record of the telling and inquiry.
2. Mark every instance of coping or resource use by any character, especially the main character, and assign it to a channel:
  - B, Belief: values, faith, meaning, mission, self-image, a sense of purpose or rightness.
  - A, Affect: expressing or sharing feelings, crying, laughing, creative expression.
  - S, Social: seeking or giving help, belonging, roles, family, team, community.
  - I, Imagination: fantasy, magic, humour, improvising, daydreaming, recalling good times, creative solutions.
  - C, Cognition: gathering information, planning, analysing, problem-solving.
  - Ph, Physiology/physical: bodily action, movement, rest, eating, work, practical activity.
3. Tally instances per channel. Lahad takes the channel with the most tallies as the author's preferred coping mode (thesis p. 51); in practice record the top two or three and any channel with zero. Brighton Therapy Partnership's self-reflection version uses one coloured pencil per channel to mark the written story, then counts: high counts are fluent styles, low counts recognised but rarely used, zero never used.
4. Write the profile as a hypothesis (e.g. "mainly C and S; little A; no Ph").
Example language: none (analysis is done by the clinician). For notes (illustrative): "Story suggests preference for cognitive and social coping; affect and physical channels absent. To check with client."
Watch for: Lahad acknowledged inter-judge reliability is problematic (thesis p. 26); Dent-Brown doubts BASIC Ph's fit for people with few coping strategies (thesis p. 51). If you will act on the profile, ask a colleague to tally independently and compare. [synthesis] Lahad's later "seven levels of assessment" drawn from the 6PSM (Lahad 2013, cited by Vettraino 2015) is not described here. [uncertain]

4.8 Manifest-content rating: the pessimism/failure scale (research)

Purpose / when: Where you want a more reliable, less interpretive reading of outcome and atmosphere, or are doing service evaluation or research. It is the only 6PSM rating with published reliability. [source: Dent-Brown & Wang 2004]
Steps:
1. Obtain the published article and use its eight items as printed; they are not reproduced here. In outline, four items rate a negative outcome for the main character and a pessimistic, bleak or morbid atmosphere; four rate a positive or win-win outcome and images of growth and life. Each is rated on a five-point agreement scale, with the positive items reverse-keyed into a pessimism/failure score.
2. Rate the manifest content only: what happens in the story, not what you infer about the author.
3. If possible, have a second, independent rater score the same transcript.
Example language: none (rating task).
Watch for: Reported figures: test-retest r = .75 over one month (n = 17), inter-rater r = .80 (n = 64), alpha = .96; correlated with CORE total (r = .51) and IIP (r = .52); stories by people with a borderline personality disorder diagnosis scored higher than others. This is a pilot that "will also need to be cross-validated" (p. 8). Do not use a score to diagnose anyone; at most it supports a hypothesis about pessimistic expectations to explore. [source: Dent-Brown & Wang 2004 pp. 4–8] Dent-Brown & Wang's helpfulness-of-others and violent-imagery scales lacked test-retest stability and should not be used for individual decisions.

4.9 Sharing the reading with the client

Purpose / when: Following the analysis, to turn the story into a shared understanding and a choice of next steps. [source: Dent-Brown 2004 thesis pp. 22–23 for Barnum and projection cautions; steps: synthesis]
Steps: [synthesis]
1. Return to the sheet together. Start by reflecting the story's events in the client's words.
2. Offer one or two specific observations tied to particular frames ("your character got through by making a plan and asking her brother").
3. Ask whether that fits how the client tends to cope in life; accept "no" as data.
4. Name strengths before gaps; frame an absent channel as "one you might not reach for much", not a deficit.
5. Agree what, if anything, to work on.
Example language (illustrative): "When things got hard in your story, your character worked it out step by step and found someone to help. I wonder whether that's familiar for you. What do you think?"
Watch for: Avoid generic statements that would fit anyone (the Barnum effect, thesis p. 23). It is working when the client corrects, adds to or extends the reading rather than passively agreeing.

4.10 Matching intervention to the preferred channel

Purpose / when: In crisis and early work, to meet the person in the channel they already use, since channel mismatch can itself increase distress. [source: Zabłocka-Żytka & Lahad 2025; Sazonova 2024]
Steps:
1. Identify the leading channels from the story and from how the client talks about real events (the authors stress listening to how a person narrates their reaction).
2. Offer help in that channel. The sources give these pairings: C, reliable information and a step-by-step plan; Ph, practical or physical activity; B, help finding meaning and, if wanted, connection with a faith community; A and S, acknowledging feelings and connecting with family and with others in a similar situation. Sazonova suggests meaning-centred (logotherapeutic) work for belief-led copers and cognitive exercises for those who need alternative solutions.
3. Check that the client experiences the help as fitting.
Example language (illustrative): to a cognitive coper: "Would it help if we wrote down what we know so far and what the next three steps are?"
Watch for: The client relaxing, engaging and asking for more of the same kind of help. A client who seems more anxious may be being offered the wrong channel. [synthesis]

4.11 Widening underused channels

Purpose / when: Once the client is stabilised, to build resilience by adding channels. [source: Brighton Therapy Partnership 2020 (build weaker styles by practice); Zabłocka-Żytka & Lahad 2025 (moving from receiving help to helping others to build agency); steps: synthesis]
Steps:
1. Choose one low-scoring channel the client is willing to try.
2. Agree a small, concrete practice in that channel (e.g. for S, one contact a week; for Ph, a daily walk; for A, naming a feeling to someone; for I, imagining a helper figure from the story). [synthesis]
3. Review at the next session; keep the preferred channel available as a base.
4. Where appropriate, invite the client to help others, which the authors describe as building agency.
Example language (illustrative): "Your character never stopped to rest or eat. What would it be like to try one small physical thing this week, just to see?"
Watch for: Pushing a channel the client finds aversive (e.g. affect for a client who fears being overwhelmed); go slowly and return to the preferred channel if distress rises.

4.12 Repeat administration to monitor change

Purpose / when: To track coping and outlook over time, e.g. at intake and review, or during a medical or crisis period. [source: thesis pp. 31, 75 (one-month retest; paediatric oncology monitoring in Israel); Culligan 2018 abstract (daily use with children)]
Steps:
1. Use identical prompts, frame order and materials each time.
2. Ask for a new story, not a retelling of the last one.
3. Compare outcome valence and channel profile across stories; look for trends across several stories rather than reacting to one.
Example language (illustrative): "Let's make up a brand-new story, same six boxes as before."
Watch for: Only outcome/pessimism content showed month-to-month stability in research; helper and violent-imagery content fluctuate, so single-story shifts in them mean little. [source: Dent-Brown & Wang 2004] A sharp turn toward bleak or morbid endings is a prompt for a direct conversation about mood and safety, not a risk score. [synthesis]

4.13 Use with children and in groups

Purpose / when: The method began in school-based resilience work with children (thesis p. 31) and has been used with refugee learners in a group drama-therapy intervention (Hill 2016, abstract) and daily with children aged 6–13 in partial hospitalisation, where starting with storytelling was reported to foster playfulness and openness during risk-assessment questions (Culligan 2018, abstract). Full procedures from these theses are not drawn on here. [uncertain]
Steps: [synthesis]
1. Obtain parental or carer consent and the child's assent; agree who sees the sheets.
2. Simplify prompts ("a hero", "a job to do", "who helps", "what's in the way", "what the hero does", "how it ends"); allow words, symbols, or dictation for children who do not want to draw.
3. Younger children may need each frame prompt repeated and may tell the story frame by frame rather than as a whole.
4. In groups, seat members so they cannot easily copy, give prompts to everyone at once, and have stories told to the clinician individually or in pairs rather than to the whole group unless members choose to share. Keep group time for strengths-focused discussion of helpers and coping, not interpretation of individuals.
5. Work in the child's first language, or with an interpreter briefed on the fiction frame; allow culturally familiar characters and story forms.
6. Explain limits of confidentiality before starting; follow your safeguarding and mandatory-reporting procedures if a child discloses harm.
Example language (illustrative): "Think of a hero, any kind of hero. It could be an animal, a person, a robot. Draw them in the first box."
Watch for: Children's stories often contain monsters, death and violence as ordinary story material; these are not evidence of abuse or disorder. A disclosure is different: a child stating that something is happening to them. [synthesis; Dent-Brown & Wang 2004 on non-discriminating themes]

4.14 Use in supervision and reflective practice

Purpose / when: For practitioners reflecting on their own coping, a case or a professional challenge. Vettraino (2015) explores the 6PSM as performative reflection in reflective practice; Brighton Therapy Partnership presents the six-panel story as a self-reflection tool for identifying one's own coping strengths and gaps. [source: Vettraino 2015 abstract only; Brighton Therapy Partnership 2020]
Steps: Brighton Therapy Partnership version: divide a sheet into six boxes labelled main character, mission, who or what can help, obstacles, how the character meets the challenge, outcome; write a couple of sentences in each; mark coping instances by channel with six colours; count; plan deliberate practice for weak channels. In supervision, the supervisee may make a story about a case and the supervisor asks the inquiry questions. [supervision application: synthesis]
Example language (illustrative): "Make a six-part story where the main character is facing something like the situation with this client. Let's see what it shows us."
Watch for: Keep it reflective, not therapy for the supervisee; agree boundaries first. [synthesis]

4.15 Variant: the Eight-Part Story Method (Beehive Model)

Purpose / when: A Sri Lankan, Buddhist-informed adaptation tracing its origin to the 6PSM. It has eight stages (protagonist, place, needs, tasks, obstacles, support systems, cost analysis of risks and benefits, wisdom or wisest choice) and two phases: a metaphoric story-making and drawing phase for assessment, and a direct, self-examining phase aimed at change. [source: Ranasinha 2025 dataset record] Its full procedure is not drawn on here. [uncertain]
Steps: Not given here beyond the stages above; consult the author's material before use.
Watch for: It is a distinct method with its own cultural and religious framework; do not mix its stages into 6PSM administration if you intend to compare stories or use the pessimism scale. [synthesis]

4.16 Optional extension: working dramatically with the story [synthesis]

Purpose / when: Not part of the published assessment procedure (Dent-Brown's thesis describes no enactment). Drama therapists may, in later therapy sessions, use the story as material: e.g. re-telling a new ending, or briefly embodying a helper. Use only within your own drama therapy competence, after the assessment is complete.
Steps: Agree the aim with the client; choose a low-intensity form (re-drawing frame 6, telling it from the helper's view) before any embodiment; keep the client in charge of what is enacted; de-role explicitly (step out of the character, say your own name, return the sheet to the table) and close with a grounding conversation about the here and now.
Example language (illustrative): "If you could add a seventh box, what would happen next?"
Watch for: Rising distress when a fictional obstacle maps closely onto real trauma; return to the drawing (more distance) and stop if needed. Touch is not required; if any is used in embodiment, ask first, offer a clear opt-out and never use sexual or intimate touch.

5. Handling problems

The sources say little about in-session difficulties; Dent-Brown's thesis does not address refusal, inability to draw or distressing content. Unless a source is named, the guidance below is [synthesis].

"I can't draw." Repeat that the pictures are only reminders; offer matchstick figures, symbols, a single word or writing two sentences per box (the Brighton Therapy Partnership version is fully written). If still stuck, let the client describe and you sketch exactly what they say, noting the change in your record.
Stuck on a frame ("I don't know what the problem is"). Wait; then re-give the prompt once in simpler words; allow a placeholder ("put a question mark and we'll come back"). Do not suggest content, which would contaminate the projection. An empty frame left after the story is told is information to ask about in inquiry.
Refusal or suspicion of being analysed. Explain why you are using it and what you will and will not conclude from it; offer to share your reading with them. Respect a refusal: the method is one optional input, and assessment can proceed by interview.
The story is plainly autobiographical (low distance). Do not push the client back into fiction mid-telling; let them finish. In inquiry, keep questions about the character. If distress rises, slow down, return attention to the paper and the room, and offer to stop. Consider that for this client a more distanced task may be needed later.
Overwhelm or trauma memories triggered. Stop the procedure; ground the client (orient to the room, breathing at their own pace, feet on the floor); acknowledge without probing details; check safety before they leave. Do not resume the story in that session. Screen beforehand for recent trauma and acute crisis, and in those cases prefer brief, strengths-focused use or postpone. The method's origins are resilience-building in communities under attack (thesis p. 31), which supports gentle, resource-oriented use rather than trauma processing.
Bleak, violent or death-filled stories. Note them and rate manifest content if you use the pessimism scale; then ask about mood and safety directly in ordinary clinical terms. Follow standard suicide risk assessment if indicated. Do not treat imagery as evidence of risk, abuse or a diagnosis: predicted indicators such as rescue and abandonment themes did not distinguish groups (Dent-Brown & Wang 2004 pp. 6–7), and violent-imagery ratings were unstable over time.
A child discloses harm. Step out of the story: listen, do not question leadingly, record the child's words, and follow your local safeguarding and mandatory-reporting procedure the same day. The drawing itself is not evidence; the disclosure is what you report.
Client asks "What does it say about me?" Answer with tentative, specific observations tied to the frames, and ask for their view (see 4.9). Avoid labels, diagnoses or generalities that fit anyone (Barnum effect: thesis p. 23).
Clinician over-interpretation. Separate what happened in the story from your inference; get an independent second tally or rating when decisions depend on it; check your reading against interview and validated measures to avoid the circularity Dent-Brown describes (thesis pp. 22, 44).
Channel profile does not match the person you know. Treat the profile as one hypothesis; BASIC Ph tallies have unknown reliability (thesis p. 26) and may fit poorly for people with few coping strategies (thesis p. 51). Combine the story with how the client narrates real events, as Zabłocka-Żytka & Lahad recommend.
Mismatch rupture ("You're not listening"). If the client feels misunderstood after you offer help in one channel (e.g. information when they wanted their feelings heard), name it, apologise, and switch to their channel. Channel mismatch can itself raise distress (Zabłocka-Żytka & Lahad 2025).
Non-adherence with channel-widening homework. Make the task smaller, link it to the client's preferred channel (e.g. a cognitive coper reads about the benefits of exercise before trying a walk), or choose a different underused channel.
Group problems (copying, teasing, disclosure in front of peers). Prevent by individual telling and agreed group rules; if a member discloses something painful in the group, acknowledge briefly, protect them from further exposure and follow up privately.
Cultural mismatch. Story forms, heroes and moral endings differ by culture; a story without a classic resolution may be culturally normal. Avoid reading belief content as a coping deficit or excess; ask what the story means within the client's tradition. Locally adapted versions exist (see 4.15).
Using it beyond its evidence. Do not use 6PSM output for diagnosis, legal or custody decisions, or abuse investigations; no validated manual supports such use. The only published reliability data are the pilot pessimism/failure scale awaiting cross-validation (Dent-Brown & Wang 2004).

Sources

Sources:

Further reading (not drawn on; details as cited in the sources above; full bibliographic details [uncertain]):

Lahad, M. (1992). Chapter describing six-piece story-making as an assessment method for coping with stress, linked to BASIC Ph (cited by Dent-Brown 2004 and Vettraino 2015).
Lahad, M. & Ayalon, O. (1993). Publication presenting BASIC Ph as a model of coping resources (cited by Dent-Brown 2004).
Lahad, M., Shacham, M. & Ayalon, O. (eds) (2013). The "BASIC Ph" Model of Coping and Resiliency. Jessica Kingsley Publishers (includes Lahad's "seven levels of assessment" from the 6PSM, per Vettraino 2015; year given as 2012 in one citing source).

Further reading (not drawn on): two Association for Cognitive Analytic Therapy Reformulation articles on six-part storymaking and the full Witwatersrand report.

← Previous · VIII-111Sesame approach (Lindkvist)Next · VIII-113 →Narradrama