A Strengths-Based Group Intervention for Women Who Experienced Child Sexual Abuse

Abstract

This study evaluated the benefits of a ''survivor to thriver'' strengths-based group intervention program to facilitate posttraumatic growth in women survivors of child sexual abuse. Method: A quasi-experimental, one group, pretest, posttest, time-delay design was employed using qualitative methods to evaluate the benefits of the intervention with 10 purposively selected women with a history of child sexual abuse. Six group sessions were conducted as well as a delayed follow-up session. Qualitative data were collected using drawings, narratives, and transcriptions. Results: Qualitative thematic content data analysis portrayed enabling processes of PTG such as emotional awareness, decisive action, posttrauma identity, and a healing group context. Conclusion: These themes suggest growth outcomes. However, a longitudinal study is recommended to establish efficacy and to inform practice with replicable interventions.

A Group Intervention Programme for Adult Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse

“…In the S2T strengths-based group intervention programme our theory of change is based upon the following premises: a) we belief that CSA survivors internalise negative trauma messages in terms of themselves, others and the world; b) these messages play out in destructive and defensive behaviour patterns; c) the goal of the S2T strengthsbased group intervention programme is to reframe these cognitive distortions, teach emotional regulation, personal integration and emotion-focused adapted coping; d) from this struggle to cope with this reintegration, we focus on the strengths emerging as a post-trauma identity, where they gain a sense of empowerment by having a future perspective, while reclaiming all the parts of themselves and their experiences; e) we believe that the group is a vehicle of healing facilitated by expert companions; and f) accessing and connecting with social support strengths is imperative in this process (Walker-Williams & Fouché, 2015).…”

“…Clinicians are encouraged to use interventions that facilitate posttraumatic growth sensitively and promote awareness of the dichotomy in trauma recovery where possibilities of growth may be explored in the context of suffering Walker-Williams & Fouché, 2015). The treatment outcomes of the S2T strengthsbased group intervention programme follow a narrative progression from victim to survivor to thriver.…”

“…The theory of change behind these traditional approaches focuses on reducing symptoms and improving functioning by altering cognitive distortions and dysfunctional behavioural patterns in adulthood such as substance abuse, mental health difficulties and the subsequent reduction of symptoms (Kessler et al, 2003;Taylor & Harvey, 2010). Two recent South African studies, an empirical and an outcome study, surprisingly indicate that some women can indeed display strengths born from their struggle to overcome the adversity of the CSA (Walker-Williams, 2012; Walker-Williams, Van Eeden & Van der Merwe, 2012;Walker-Williams & Fouché, 2015). Thus, the person's strengths become the resources for change that enable them to move towards growth, mastery and wellbeing, while also remedying the dysfunctional behaviours (Cummins, Sevel & Pedrick, 2012).…”

“…In South Africa Walker-Williams and Fouché (2015) developed and evaluated such a strengths-based group intervention, namely S2T, an acronym denoting from Survivor to Thriver, which was empirically tested with two groups of South African CSA survivors (Walker-Williams & Fouché, 2015). It is thus the purpose of this study to report on the development and implementation of, and critical reflections on, the S2T strengths-based group intervention.…”

“…The strengths perspective, on the other hand focuses not only on recovery, but also on the resources and assets inherent to the individual, which can translate into experiences of growth, as a result of the struggle with adversity (Grych, Hamby & Barnyard, 2015;Hamby, Banyard & Grych, 2016;Hodges & Myers, 2010;Tedeschi, 2010;Vilenica & Shakespeare-Finch, 2012). The deficit approach is thus based on the medical model and attempts to fix what is broken (Cummins et al, 2012), while in the strengths perspective the focus is not on what is wrong, but instead on what is strong (Walker-Williams & Fouché, 2015). Adapted from Saleebey's (1996) comparison of pathology and strengths…”