Couples Therapy Modalities: EFT, Gottman, IBCT & More Explained

You've probably noticed that choosing the right therapy modalities can feel like navigating a crowded marketplace.

Each model promises results, but the real question is which one fits the couple sitting across from you right now. The good news is that most approaches to couples counseling share core healing factors, and the evidence shows that couples therapy works across models when delivered with intention.

This guide breaks down the major types of couples therapy in practical terms. You'll find clear markers for matching approaches to presentation, common elements that drive change, and what the evidence actually supports.

Whether you're building your couples counseling practice or refining your integrative style, this will help you choose and blend therapy modalities with confidence.

TL;DR

• Couples therapy works best when safety and structure are prioritized.
• Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT), Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy (IBCT), and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) have the strongest research support.
• Gottman Method adds strong process research and practical skill-building.
• Match the modality to the couple’s pattern for best results.
• Always screen for violence, coercion, suicidality, or ongoing affairs before starting.

What "Couples Therapy Modalities" Means

A modality is a distinct therapeutic approach with its own theory, specific targets, and signature methods. In couples counseling, therapy modalities give you a map for understanding relationship distress and a toolkit for creating change.

They differ in what they prioritize - attachment bonds, behavioral patterns, cognitive distortions, or developmental growth - but they all aim to resolve conflicts and deepen emotional connection.

Most experienced couples therapists work integratively in real practice. You might open with Gottman Method conflict assessment, use Emotionally Focused enactments to access emotion, and borrow IBCT's unified detachment when partners hit gridlock.

That flexibility is a strength, not a compromise, as long as you're intentional about what you're borrowing and why.

Different types of couples therapy also share common factors that predict outcomes. Alliance with one or both partners, clear structure, emotional safety, and collaborative goal-setting matter as much as the model itself.

The modality gives you direction; your relational presence and clinical judgment bring it to life.

What the Evidence Says at a Glance

Couples therapy reduces relationship distress and improves relationship satisfaction across models. Meta-analyses consistently show moderate to large significant improvements, and gains hold at follow-up when treatment is delivered with fidelity.

Three modalities have particularly strong randomized trial support: Emotionally Focused Therapy, Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy, and Cognitive Behavioral Couple Therapy.

Each has been tested in multiple controlled trials with diverse samples, and all outperform waitlist and treatment-as-usual conditions through effective couples therapy interventions.

Gottman Method Therapy has robust longitudinal process research identifying predictors of stability and divorce. Outcome trials are growing, showing significant improvements in relationship satisfaction and communication skills.

Other models like PACT, Imago Relationship Therapy, Narrative Therapy, and Solution Focused Therapy show promise with supportive data, though fewer large-scale RCTs exist yet.

Comparison at a Glance

This table highlights key distinctions, but remember that therapy modalities can be blended based on case needs. The best approach is often the one you can deliver with both fidelity and flexibility.

Core Couples Therapy Modalities Explained

Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT)

Targets: Emotionally Focused Therapy focuses on attachment injuries and negative interaction patterns. It views relationship distress as a signal that one or both partners feel emotionally disconnected or unsafe. The model aims to reshape the emotional bond by making attachment needs explicit and accessible.

Mechanism: Change happens in three stages: 

1. De-escalating the negative cycle
2. Deepening primary emotions like fear or shame
3. Creating corrective bonding events. 

Partners learn to reach for each other rather than withdraw or attack.

Techniques: You'll use enactments to slow down interactions and heighten emotion in therapy sessions. Emotion coaching helps partners name and express vulnerable feelings. Cycle mapping externalizes the pattern so both partners see the feedback loop they're stuck in.

Best Fit: Emotionally Focused Therapy works especially well with high reactivity, pursue-withdraw dynamics, and post-affair recovery when safety has been re-established. It's powerful for couples who can tolerate emotion-focused work and want to rebuild trust through emotional attunement.

Cautions: Active coercive control or severe intimate partner violence requires a different pathway. Emotionally Focused approaches assume one or both partners can regulate enough to engage in vulnerable sharing. Screen carefully and stabilize safety first.

Evidence: EFT has strong RCT support with 70-75% of couples moving from distressed to non-distressed. Gains are sustained at follow-up, and the model has been adapted for diverse populations and trauma recovery, showing extensive research backing for addressing relationship issues.

Gottman Method

Targets: The Gottman Method addresses conflict patterns, friendship, trust, and shared meaning. It's built on decades of observational research identifying what predicts marital stability versus divorce, making it one of the most evidence-based types of couples therapy.

Mechanism: Change comes from reducing the Four Horsemen (criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling) and increasing repair attempts and turning toward bids. You're building friendship and managing conflict constructively, not eliminating disagreement.

Techniques: Love maps deepen knowledge of each other's inner world. Rituals of connection create predictable positive interactions. Conflict regulation skills include softened startup, accepting influence, and self-soothing to improve communication.

Best Fit: Gottman Method Therapy suits couples with communication skills gaps, escalating conflict, and co-parenting strain. It's structured and psychoeducational, so it works well with partners who appreciate clear frameworks and homework.

Cautions: Contempt is the strongest predictor of poor outcomes. If contempt is pervasive, address underlying issues and power dynamics before moving to skills. Always screen for safety before teaching conflict skills.

Evidence: Gottman Method extensive research is robust, predicting divorce with high accuracy. Outcome trials show significant improvements in relationship satisfaction and communication skills, and the model is widely disseminated with strong clinician support.

Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy (IBCT)

Targets: Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy targets chronic differences and polarizations that create gridlock. It assumes that pushing for change often increases resistance, so it balances acceptance with strategic behavior change to address relationship issues.

Mechanism: The DEEP formulation (Differences, Emotional sensitivities, External stressors, Patterns of interaction) organizes case conceptualization. Change happens through unified detachment (stepping back together to examine the problem) and empathic joining (deepening understanding of each other's pain).

Techniques: You'll help partners see their pattern from the outside without blame. Empathic joining softens defensiveness by highlighting hidden vulnerabilities. Behavioral activation reintroduces positive aspects of the relationship when acceptance opens space for change.

Best Fit: Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy is ideal for gridlock over stable differences like parenting styles, spending habits, or sexual frequency. It works well when partners are stuck in repeated stalemates and need to stop fighting reality.

Cautions: The model is less effective when motivation is very low or when hidden infidelity undermines the foundation. If one partner is checked out or actively pursuing an affair, address that before acceptance work.

Evidence: Strong RCT support shows Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy produces durable gains comparable to traditional CBCT. Acceptance work particularly helps couples with chronic differences that won't resolve, improving relationship satisfaction over time.

Cognitive Behavioral Couple Therapy (CBCT)

Targets: Cognitive Behavioral Couple Therapy focuses on cognitive distortions and behavior deficits that fuel conflict. It assumes that how partners think about each other and what they do shapes satisfaction in adult relationships.

Mechanism: Restructure maladaptive thoughts (like mind-reading or catastrophizing), teach problem-solving and communication skills, and reinforce positive aspects through behavioral exchange.

Techniques: Socratic questioning challenges cognitive distortions. Behavioral exchange assigns positive actions to increase goodwill. Communication training teaches active listening, I-statements, and structured problem-solving to improve communication.

Best Fit: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy CBT works well for couples with concrete goals, comorbid anxiety or depression, and clear skill deficits. It's structured, goal-oriented, and appeals to partners who value evidence-based therapy interventions.

Cautions: The model may under-access emotion if partners are avoidant. It's easy to default to skill-building and miss the underlying attachment pain. Blend with emotion-focused techniques when needed to address underlying issues.

Evidence: Robust controlled trials show Cognitive Behavioral Therapy produces significant improvements in relationship satisfaction and communication. It's one of the most researched couple therapy models with solid outcome data and extensive research support.

Imago Relationship Therapy

Targets: Imago Relationship Therapy focuses on childhood wounds repeated in adult bonds. Partners unconsciously choose each other to heal old injuries from childhood experiences, then trigger each other when those injuries resurface.

Mechanism: Build safety and empathy through structured dialogue. Partners learn to see each other's triggers as windows into early pain rather than personal attacks, developing deeper understanding of their relationship patterns.

Techniques: Mirroring (reflecting back exactly what you heard), validation (acknowledging one partner's perspective makes sense), empathy (imagining their feelings), and reimaging (healing the trigger by offering what was missing in childhood).

Best Fit: Imago Relationship Therapy works well for blame-defensiveness loops and insight-oriented partners who value understanding the why behind their patterns. It's relational and growth-focused rather than symptom-focused.

Cautions: Less suitable during acute crisis or ongoing safety risks. The model requires emotional bandwidth and willingness to explore vulnerability. Stabilize first if partners are in high distress.

Evidence: Supportive studies show improvements in empathy and relationship satisfaction. Fewer large-scale RCTs compared to Emotionally Focused Therapy or Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy, but strong clinical tradition and wide dissemination through Imago Therapy training.

Psychobiological Approach to Couple Therapy (PACT)

Targets: PACT targets arousal regulation, attachment, and nervous system cues. It blends attachment theory, neuroscience, and developmental psychology to work with the brain's survival responses in addressing relationship issues.

Mechanism: Moment-to-moment tracking of nonverbal cues, facial expressions, and tone. Partners create secure-functioning agreements that prioritize mutual care over individual needs during threat, strengthening their emotional connection.

Techniques: Nonverbal couples therapy techniques like eye contact and touch. Stance shifts to change arousal. Rapid de-escalation by interrupting the autonomic hijack before it spirals.

Best Fit: High reactivity, trauma histories, and safety boundary work. PACT is powerful for couples where one or both partners have anxious or avoidant attachment and struggle to co-regulate.

Cautions: Requires specialized training and can feel intense. The focus on nonverbal work and in-the-moment tracking demands strong clinical presence and attunement as a couples therapist.

Evidence: Growing clinical support and case examples. Limited large-scale RCTs, but the model is gaining traction among trauma-informed therapists for its neurobiological focus on emotional regulation.

Narrative Therapy

Targets: Narrative Therapy addresses problem-saturated identities and blame stories. Couples get stuck when they see each other as "the problem" rather than two people facing a shared challenge in their relationship dynamics.

Mechanism: Externalize the problem (separate the person from the issue) and re-author preferred narratives. Partners reclaim agency by highlighting unique outcomes when the problem didn't dominate.

Techniques: Mapping influence (exploring how the problem affects them and how they affect it), unique outcomes (times the problem was absent), and re-membering practices (reconnecting with supportive voices).

Best Fit: Stuck identity labels, shame, and cultural stressors. Narrative Therapy works well when partners are entrenched in negative thought patterns and need space to imagine new possibilities for their relationship.

Cautions: Integrate communication skills training if deficits persist. Narrative excels at shifting meaning but may not address skill gaps or behavioral patterns directly, requiring couples therapy interventions from other modalities.

Evidence: Supportive qualitative and case studies. Fewer controlled trials, but the model has strong theoretical coherence and cultural adaptability as one of several effective types of couples therapy.

Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT)

Targets: Solution Focused Therapy targets rapid change by amplifying exceptions and goals. Instead of analyzing problems, you focus on positive aspects - what's already working and how to do more of it.

Mechanism: Future focus, strengths use, and small wins. Partners envision their preferred future and identify times the problem was less severe or absent, fostering positive connection.

Techniques: Miracle question (if the problem disappeared overnight, what would be different?), scaling (rate progress and identify next steps), and exception-finding (when does the relationship work better?).

Best Fit: Mild to moderate distress, time-limited contexts, and couples who prefer action over insight. Solution Focused Therapy is practical and hopeful, which appeals to partners exhausted by problem talk.

Cautions: Not enough for betrayal trauma or violence risk. The brief, strengths-focused approach may bypass necessary grief, repair, or safety planning needed to address underlying issues.

Evidence: Moderate support for brief outcomes. Solution Focused Therapy shows promise for goal-focused couples but lacks the depth of evidence for severe relationship distress.

Developmental Model

Targets: The Developmental Model focuses on differentiation and intimacy through growth stages. Partners must balance self-definition with connection, tolerating the anxiety that comes with being fully known.

Mechanism: Increase self-definition and tolerance for tension. Partners learn to hold onto themselves while staying emotionally present with each other, creating a more fulfilling relationship.

Techniques: Differentiation coaching, boundary work, and self-regulation. You help partners resist fusion and reactivity by developing a solid sense of self within the relationship.

Best Fit: Enmeshment, fusion, and long-term partners in gridlock. The model suits couples stuck in repetitive relationship patterns because neither partner can tolerate the discomfort of change.

Cautions: Early-stage or fragile couples may need stabilization first. Differentiation work can feel destabilizing if the relationship lacks a secure foundation or emotional bond.

Evidence: Strong clinical tradition rooted in Bowen and Schnarch. Emerging research supports differentiation as a key predictor of relationship satisfaction, though large-scale trials are limited.

Discernment Counseling

Targets: Discernment Counseling addresses ambivalence about staying together or separating. It's not couples therapy - it's brief, structured work to gain clarity about next steps when one partner is uncertain.

Mechanism: Help each partner understand their contribution to the distress and explore all three paths: stay as is, separate, or commit to six months of intensive therapy.

Techniques: Individual meetings plus couple check-ins. Decision mapping clarifies each person's position without pressure to decide immediately during these therapy sessions.

Best Fit: Mixed-agenda couples where one wants out and one partner wants to stay. Also useful post-affair when partners are at a crossroads, addressing specific relationship difficulties.

Cautions: Not treatment. Contraindicated when there is safety risk, as the model assumes both partners can participate freely. Limit to 1-5 sessions.

Evidence: Growing support for decision clarity and alignment. Discernment Counseling fills a gap between therapy (assumes commitment to change) and separation (assumes decision is made).

Sex Therapy for Couples

Targets: Sex Therapy addresses desire, arousal, orgasm, pain, and sexual scripts as they relate to relationship issues. It treats both medical and relational factors that disrupt sexual connection and sexual satisfaction.

Mechanism: Reduce performance anxiety, update restrictive scripts, and rebuild erotic connection. Partners learn to communicate about sex without shame or avoidance, addressing sexual difficulties directly.

Techniques: Sensate focus (structured touching exercises), scheduling sex, psychoeducation about arousal and anatomy, and collaboration with medical providers for pain or dysfunction to address physical health problems.

Best Fit: Sexual dysfunctions, discrepant desire, postpartum shifts, and couples where sex has become a battleground. Often integrated with another modality for relational distress or combined with family therapy approaches.

Cautions: Screen for trauma, medications, endocrine issues, and pelvic pain. Physical health concerns often coexist with relationship dynamics. Coordinate care with physicians when needed to address physical health problems.

Evidence: Robust for specific dysfunctions when combined with medical care. Sensate focus and desire interventions show strong outcomes in controlled studies to improve relationship satisfaction.

Premarital Counseling and Relationship Education

Targets: Prevention and communication skills before high distress. The goal is to build communication, align expectations, and create shared meaning early in adult relationships.

Mechanism: Teach conflict skills, explore hot topics like finances and parenting, and strengthen friendship. Prevention is easier than repair in addressing relationship issues.

Techniques: Relationship inventories (like PREPARE/ENRICH), structured couples therapy exercises on values and goals, and conflict skills practice to improve communication.

Best Fit: Engaged couples, early-stage partners, and stepfamily planning. Also useful for couples entering life transitions like parenthood or retirement, helping establish a fulfilling relationship foundation.

Cautions: Not suitable for severe distress or safety concerns. If initial assessment reveals serious issues, transition to therapy rather than continuing with education.

Evidence: Moderate preventive benefits. Couples who participate in premarital counseling show better communication and lower distress at follow-up, though effect sizes are smaller than therapy for distressed couples.

Document Couples Sessions Fast

Auto-generate notes for EFT, Gottman, IBCT sessions

Try for Free

Matching Modality to the Couple's Presentation

Clinical Fit Cues

You can match your approach to what you see in the first few therapy sessions. Here are common presentations and therapy modalities that fit:

• Attachment injuries and pursue-withdraw: Consider Emotionally Focused Therapy or PACT. These models work directly with emotional disconnection and nervous system dysregulation to improve emotional connection.
• Chronic gridlock over stable differences: Consider Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy. Acceptance work helps partners stop fighting reality and find peace with what won't change.
• Skill deficits with escalating conflict: Consider Gottman Method Therapy or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy CBT. Both teach concrete tools for communication, repair, and problem-solving to improve communication.
• High ambivalence about staying: Consider Discernment Counseling first. Clarity about commitment precedes therapeutic change.
• Sexual pain or dysfunction: Integrate Sex Therapy and medical input. Address both relationship dynamics and physiological factors.
• Complex trauma and high arousal: Consider PACT or Emotionally Focused Therapy with pacing. Both work with nervous system regulation and attachment security through effective couples therapy interventions.
• Identity and meaning stuckness: Consider Narrative Therapy or Developmental models. These approaches help partners re-author stories and differentiate without losing connection.
• Brief, goal-focused needs: Consider Solution Focused Therapy or brief Cognitive Behavioral approaches. Both are time-limited and action-oriented types of couples therapy.

Matching isn't rigid. Start with the modality that fits the presenting issue, then adapt as the couple's needs evolve.

Common Elements Across Effective Couples Work

What Most Models Share

All effective couples counseling shares core elements that predict outcomes. You can think of these as the foundation beneath the modality.

• Early assessment of safety, secrets, and readiness: Screen for violence, affairs, and whether both partners are present voluntarily. Clarify your policy on secrets before starting couples therapy sessions.
• Therapeutic alliance with one or both partners and balanced validation: Each partner needs to feel you understand them. Imbalance predicts dropout.
• Clear goals and a shared map of negative interaction patterns: Partners need to see the pattern they're stuck in and agree on what they want instead.
• De-escalation and timeouts to reduce threat: Teach partners to slow down and self-soothe when conflict escalates. Safety first, always, during the therapeutic process.
• Coaching repair attempts and turning toward: Practice new interactions in therapy sessions. Small positive exchanges build momentum.
• Progress tracking with brief measures: Use tools like the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) or Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) to monitor change and improve relationship satisfaction.
• Cultural humility and inclusive language for all identities: Center each couple's cultural context, values, and lived experience. Adapt your language and assumptions accordingly.

These common factors often matter as much as the specific modality. Your warmth, skill, and attunement as a couples therapist carry the intervention.

Formats and Logistics That Shape Outcomes

Delivery Choices

How you structure couples therapy sessions affects engagement and outcomes. Consider these practical factors:

• Telehealth works for many couples: It improves access and convenience. Plan for privacy (separate rooms if possible) and tech support for glitches.
• Weekly 60 to 90 minutes is common: Longer therapy sessions give you space to de-escalate, practice, and re-regulate. Intensives (half-day or multi-day formats) suit specific cases like affair recovery.
• Conjoint focus is standard: Most couples work happens with both partners present. Brief individual check-ins can be useful for safety screening or processing shame, but keep the couple as the client.
• Secrets policies must be explicit before starting: Decide whether you'll hold secrets or require full disclosure. State your policy clearly in informed consent.
• Documentation and informed consent should name the couple as client: This clarifies confidentiality and your role. Be transparent about limits, especially regarding safety and court involvement.

Contraindications and Special Situations

When to Pause or Adapt

Standard couples therapy isn't always the right starting point. Know when to pause, refer, or adapt based on initial assessment.

• Active coercive control or severe IPV requires specialized pathways: Couples therapy can escalate danger if there's ongoing violence. Assess safety first and consider individual therapy for the victimized partner.
• Acute suicidality or psychosis needs stabilization first: Address individual mental health crises before couples work. Partner with mental health providers as needed.
• Untreated severe substance use can block couple progress: Active addiction disrupts honesty, emotional regulation, and follow-through. Coordinate with addiction treatment.
• Hidden ongoing affairs undermine trust work: If one partner is still involved with someone else, couples counseling can't rebuild honesty. Require full disclosure or pause therapy.
• Complex medical or sexual pain conditions need collaboration: Partner with physicians, pelvic floor therapists, or endocrinologists when physical health concerns affect the relationship.
• Consider neurodiversity and disability accommodations early: Adjust pacing, communication style, and sensory environment to fit one or both partners' needs.

Evidence Strength and Training Notes

What to Know About Evidence and Skills

Couples therapy works, but not all therapy modalities have equal research support. Here's what the evidence landscape looks like:

• Emotionally Focused Therapy, Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy, and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy CBT have the most RCT support: These three models have been tested in multiple randomized trials with diverse samples, showing extensive research backing.
• Gottman Method Therapy has strong longitudinal process data: Decades of extensive research identify what predicts divorce versus stability. Outcome trials are growing.
• PACT, Imago Relationship Therapy, Narrative Therapy, and Solution Focused Therapy show promising outcomes: Clinical support is strong, but large-scale RCTs are limited. That doesn't mean they don't work - just that we have less controlled evidence yet.
• Fidelity matters: Integrate models intentionally, not by default. Know what you're borrowing and why when using different types of couples therapy.
• Seek supervised training and ongoing consultation: Couples counseling is complex. Invest in training for your chosen modality and consult regularly on tough cases.

Key Questions to Align on Before Selecting a Modality

Clarity Checklist

Before you commit to a specific approach, walk through these questions based on personal preferences and clinical judgment:

• What are the top two change goals for this couple?
• How much structure versus exploration do they prefer in the therapeutic process?
• Can they tolerate emotion-focused work now, or do they need communication skills first?
• What is their appetite for homework and couples therapy exercises?
• Are there safety, secrecy, or medical factors to stabilize first through individual therapy or mental health support?
• How do culture, identity, and values from childhood experiences and family history shape the work?
• What pace and format will be most sustainable for them?

Your answers will guide which modality to lead with and when to shift. Stay flexible and trust your clinical judgment.

Conclusion

Couples therapy isn’t about finding the “best” model, it’s about finding the right fit for the couple in front of you. Each modality offers a lens for understanding distress and a roadmap for repair. What matters most is safety, attunement, and your ability to choose and blend models with intention.

When you match the approach to the couple’s emotional patterns, readiness, and goals, the work becomes more effective and humane.

Emotionally Focused Therapy and Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy may guide deep emotional repair, while Gottman or CBT approaches build structure and skills. Others, like PACT or Narrative, open new ways of seeing and being together.

The evidence is clear: couples therapy works when it’s grounded in safety, collaboration, and flexibility. Focus on creating conditions where partners can slow down, see their pattern, and reach for each other again. The modality gives you the map, your clinical presence brings it to life.

FAQ's

Q. How do I know which couples therapy modality to start with?

A. Start with what fits the couple’s main pattern. If they’re stuck in emotional disconnection, try Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT). If they’re gridlocked over stable differences, Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy (IBCT) fits best. For communication issues, Gottman or CBT. You can blend models as needed, just be clear why you’re using each.

Q. Can I combine different modalities in one treatment plan?

A. Yes, most experienced therapists do. Use structure from Gottman, emotion work from EFT, and acceptance from IBCT as needed. Integration works well when it’s intentional, not random. Always anchor the blend in the couple’s goals and readiness.

Q. What if one partner isn’t sure they want to stay in the relationship?

A. Start with Discernment Counseling, not standard couples therapy. It’s a brief format (1–5 sessions) focused on clarity, not repair. It helps couples decide whether to work on the relationship or separate respectfully.

Q. How long does effective couples therapy usually take?

A. Evidence-based models typically run 12–20 sessions. Some couples benefit from extended work (up to 26 sessions), while brief models like Solution-Focused Therapy may wrap up in under 10. Duration depends on safety, motivation, and complexity.

Q. When should couples therapy not be started?

A. Pause if there’s active violence, coercive control, untreated addiction, or ongoing affairs. These need stabilization or individual therapy first. Couples therapy assumes both partners can participate safely and honestly.

Q. Is one modality proven to work better than the others?

A. No single “winner.” EFT, IBCT, and CBT have the strongest randomized trial support. Gottman has extensive process research. Others like PACT and Imago are clinically strong but less studied. The therapist’s skill and fit with the couple matter most.

Q. How do I handle couples who are too reactive or dysregulated in session?

A. Use pacing and grounding before diving deep. Models like PACT or EFT include techniques for co-regulation and emotional safety. If activation remains high, shift to stabilization or short, skill-based work first.

Q. How should I document sessions across different modalities?

A. Focus on shared elements: safety checks, pattern mapping, interventions used, and progress. Tools like SupaNote.ai can generate structured notes (SOAP, DAP, or customized formats) for EFT, Gottman, or IBCT sessions automatically, reducing admin load.

Q. What if one partner refuses to do homework or outside practice?

A. Choose approaches less dependent on between-session work, like EFT or PACT. Or simplify tasks, use micro-practices in session instead of full homework. Motivation work can come later.

Q. How can I track whether therapy is working?

A. Use short progress measures like the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) every few sessions. Also track session goals: less escalation, more repair, more emotional openness. Change should show up both in conversation tone and follow-up check-ins.

Document Couples Sessions Fast

Auto-generate notes for EFT, Gottman, IBCT sessions

Try for Free