Narrative Therapy Treatment Plan: Goals, Objectives, & Example for Mental Health Professionals

A narrative therapy treatment plan documents how a client’s problem-saturated dominant story will be externalized, examined, and re-authored into a preferred, more empowering story — built around the client’s own values, skills, and unique outcomes rather than a diagnosis-driven symptom list. Narrative therapy treats the person as separate from the problem (“the problem is the problem; the person is not the problem”), which creates a genuine, practical tension with standard treatment-plan formats built around diagnosis and pathology.

This guide walks through how to build a narrative therapy treatment plan that reflects the actual model: how externalizing conversations, unique outcomes, and re-authoring structure goals differently than problem-focused approaches, how to document diagnosis and medical necessity within a model that actively questions pathologizing language, a worked example, and common documentation mistakes. This guide is written for licensed mental health professionals, clinicians-in-training working under appropriate supervision, and behavioral health organizations developing documentation workflows. It is educational and does not establish independent scope of practice; it does not replace clinical judgment, applicable law, payer requirements, or your profession’s practice standards.

Narrative Therapy Treatment Planning at a Glance

Key Takeaways

• A narrative therapy treatment plan should document the externalized problem, the client’s identified unique outcomes and preferred story, and how that alternative story will be thickened over treatment — not a detailed problem history organized around a diagnosis-driven mechanism.
• Externalizing conversations, unique outcomes, re-authoring, and re-membering are among narrative therapy’s signature practices; there’s no single official “core four,” and treatment planning should draw on the specific practices that fit this client rather than a fixed checklist.
• Narrative therapy’s critique of pathologizing language creates a genuine documentation tension: the treatment plan still needs an accurate diagnosis and functional-impairment rationale, even though the therapeutic conversation itself works to separate the client’s identity from that diagnosis.
• Current outcome research on narrative therapy is real but limited — a 2024 meta-analysis found a significant effect on depressive symptoms in adults with somatic disorders, but rated the overall evidence certainty as low, citing small samples and inconsistency in how narrative therapy was defined and delivered across studies.
• Comprehensive narrative therapy treatment plans include 12 core sections spanning diagnosis, formulation, goals, interventions, risk, family involvement, and discharge planning.

View our Counseling Treatment Plan Template, which corresponds with this guide.

Why Treatment Planning Matters for Narrative Therapy

Narrative therapy, developed by Michael White and David Epston, is built on the premise that people experience problems when the dominant stories they and others have constructed about their lives don’t sufficiently represent their actual lived experience — and that therapy is a process of examining and re-authoring those stories (White & Epston, 1990). Because the model treats identity as storied rather than fixed, and explicitly separates the person from the problem, a narrative therapy treatment plan looks different from a diagnosis-driven one from the formulation section onward — and that difference needs to be documented deliberately.

A comprehensive treatment plan still serves the same administrative purposes it does in any modality: it documents medical necessity, supports continuity of care, and creates measurable benchmarks. Narrative therapy doesn’t have a fixed, brief session count the way some other approaches do — treatment length varies considerably by presentation, setting, and how much re-authoring and thickening work the client’s preferred story needs — so the plan should reflect a realistic, individualized course rather than assuming a fixed short or long duration by default.

Complete a Thorough Clinical Assessment Before Writing the Treatment Plan

A treatment plan should never be developed in isolation. Before identifying goals, clinicians should complete an assessment covering the presenting concern, current risk, relevant diagnostic criteria, and — central to narrative therapy specifically — how the client currently names and describes the problem, early identification of any unique outcomes (moments that don’t fit the problem-saturated story), and the social, cultural, and relational context shaping the client’s dominant narrative.

Narrative therapy pays particular attention to the broader cultural and relational context contributing to a client’s problem story — including power, culture, and social discourse — without treating that context as an excuse to skip individualized risk assessment or diagnostic clarity, both of which remain necessary regardless of therapeutic approach.

If you are looking for additional guidance on collecting assessment information before creating a treatment plan, our guides to the Counseling Intake Assessment and Biopsychosocial Assessment provide more detailed recommendations for conducting comprehensive evaluations.

What to Include in a Narrative Therapy Treatment Plan

A comprehensive narrative therapy treatment plan connects the client’s externalized problem, unique outcomes, and preferred story into a clinical roadmap. It follows the same 12-section framework used across TherapyByPro’s treatment-plan guides.

Important: Narrative therapy does not prescribe a standardized 12-section treatment-plan format. The framework below is a clinical documentation structure adapted for narrative therapy — not a component of the model itself. Individual clinicians should modify it to meet applicable licensing, organizational, payer, and jurisdiction-specific requirements, which vary and aren’t established by this guide.

If you want to document these elements in a structured format, the TherapyByPro Counseling Treatment Plan template follows this same clinical workflow.

The following sections provide a detailed overview of each component.

1. Client and Plan Information

Document the estimated treatment duration realistically based on this client’s presentation — narrative therapy doesn’t have a fixed brief or extended course, so avoid defaulting to a generic timeframe borrowed from another modality.

2. Coordinating Providers and Services

Document any other providers involved and the plan for coordination, particularly relevant if narrative therapy is being used alongside medication management or another concurrent service.

3. Diagnostic Summary

Name the definitive diagnosis and the clinical evidence supporting it, kept accurate and appropriately concise. Verify current ICD-10-CM codes and payer requirements for the specific diagnosis being documented.

4. Clinical Formulation and Treatment Rationale

Document the client’s dominant problem-saturated story, the externalized name they’ve given the problem, identified unique outcomes, and the clinical reasoning connecting this formulation to the selected goals and practices.

Clinical Documentation Note: The formulation section is where narrative therapy plans most often default back into diagnosis-centered language without meaning to — writing the externalized problem’s name and the client’s identified unique outcomes first, before restating the diagnosis, helps the documentation itself reflect the approach.

Document identified unique outcomes and the client’s existing values, skills, and preferred identity claims, alongside realistic barriers — such as a client who initially struggles to separate their identity from a long-standing problem story.

5. Medication and Concurrent Treatment

Document medications, prescribing providers, and response; note whether medication and narrative therapy are addressing the same concern or different ones.

6. Presenting Problems and Functional Impact

Describe the presenting concern and its functional impact concisely — this section still needs to establish medical necessity, without becoming an extended problem-saturated narrative that runs counter to how the therapy itself is conducted.

7. Treatment Goals and Objectives

Goals should be built from the client’s preferred story and identified unique outcomes, translated into specific, observable terms — not a diagnosis-derived symptom-reduction goal imported from a different model. Each goal should include its own baseline: the client’s current relationship to the externalized problem (how much influence it currently has in their life) alongside current functioning; a standardized symptom measure can be added when clinically or administratively indicated, though it isn’t narrative therapy’s own primary progress indicator. Each goal should also specify which narrative practices are being used to pursue it — externalizing conversations, unique-outcome exploration, re-authoring, re-membering, outsider-witness practices, therapeutic letters — and connect each to the specific target identified in the formulation, along with a method for tracking progress.

8. Treatment Modality and Interventions

Document the primary treatment modality as a whole, session format, and frequency, and between-session tasks — often framed as noticing unique outcomes, drafting or reading a therapeutic letter, or reflecting on a specific relationship with the externalized problem — distinct from the goal-specific interventions documented in section 7.

9. Risk Assessment and Safety Planning Summary

Document current and historical risk factors with the same specificity expected in any treatment plan. Narrative therapy’s strengths-based, externalizing stance doesn’t reduce the need for explicit, individualized risk assessment — a plan that treats risk only in passing because the model works to separate identity from problems is a documentation gap worth correcting directly.

10. Family, Support, and Collateral Involvement

Document family and community involvement, including any re-membering conversations (revisiting the influence of significant people, present or absent, on the client’s life) or outsider-witness practices where others are invited to witness and reflect on the client’s preferred story.

11. Transition and Discharge Planning

Discharge criteria should be tied to the client’s relationship to the externalized problem and the strength and detail of their preferred story — not a fixed session count imported from a different modality.

12. Plan Review and Signatures

Document review dates, client participation, and signatures, reinforcing that treatment planning — including the client’s own naming of the problem — is a collaborative process the client actively authors.

Narrative Therapy Treatment Plan Example

The following example demonstrates how the clinical sections of a narrative therapy treatment plan connect together for a client presenting with generalized anxiety. This example is provided for educational purposes only and should be adapted based on the individual client’s presentation, diagnosis, and applicable documentation requirements.

Narrative Therapy Treatment Plan Template

The images below provide a preview of TherapyByPro’s Counseling Treatment Plan template, designed for mental health professionals who need a structured framework for documenting narrative therapy treatment goals, measurable objectives, clinical formulation, interventions, risk considerations, and treatment progress.

The template follows a comprehensive clinical structure that can be adapted for narrative therapy delivered in individual, family, or group settings. It includes sections for client and plan information, care coordination, diagnostic summary, clinical formulation, medication and concurrent treatment, presenting problems and functional impairment, treatment goals, objectives, interventions, treatment modality, risk assessment, family and support involvement, discharge planning, and plan review documentation.

Organized across 15 dedicated pages, the editable Word document and fillable PDF allow clinicians to customize documentation based on their practice setting, clinical approach, and documentation requirements while maintaining a consistent treatment planning workflow.

Clinicians seeking a complete treatment planning solution can access TherapyByPro’s Counseling Treatment Plan template. For clinicians who need a streamlined tool focused specifically on documenting treatment goals, objectives, and interventions, the Treatment Plan Goals template provides a simplified format for tracking progress across multiple treatment goals.

How Narrative Therapy’s Signature Practices Structure the Treatment Plan

A narrative therapy treatment plan is not simply strengths-based CBT — it doesn’t follow a problem → strengths → positive reframe sequence. It follows a different logic entirely: a problem-saturated story is identified, the problem is externalized from the person, its influence (and the client’s influence on it) is mapped, unique outcomes are located, those outcomes are connected to the client’s values, intentions, skills, and history, and the resulting alternative story is re-authored and thickened over time. That sequence — not symptom-to-strength reframing — is what the treatment plan’s formulation, goals, and interventions sections should trace.

This is the single most important structural difference between a narrative therapy treatment plan and a diagnosis-driven one. Narrative therapy draws on several signature practices rather than one fixed, universally agreed “core” set — White’s later comprehensive text organizes the model around six major practice areas: externalizing conversations, re-authoring conversations, re-membering conversations, definitional ceremonies, conversations that highlight unique outcomes, and scaffolding conversations (White, 2007). The practices most directly relevant to treatment planning are:

• Externalizing conversations — separating the person from the problem, often by naming it (“The Worry,” “The Anger”) and asking questions that map its influence on the client’s life, and the client’s influence on it (White & Epston, 1990). This reframes the formulation itself: the treatment plan targets the externalized problem’s influence, not a trait or deficit within the client.
• Unique outcomes — events, actions, intentions, or experiences that stand apart from the dominant problem-saturated story, however small. A unique outcome isn’t simply a “positive event” — it’s specifically anything the dominant story can’t account for, and it becomes the entry point for constructing an alternative story.
• Re-authoring conversations — thickening the alternative story identified through unique outcomes, connecting it to the client’s values, skills, history, and hopes so it becomes a fuller, more detailed narrative than the original problem story.
• Re-membering conversations — revisiting the client’s relationships with significant people, present or absent, and how those relationships contribute to the client’s preferred identity (White, 2007). This may also involve definitional ceremonies or outsider-witness practices, where others reflect on and help thicken the client’s emerging story.

In the treatment plan, these practices shift the formulation’s emphasis away from a diagnosis-specific maintaining mechanism, toward the externalized problem, the client’s identified unique outcomes, and the alternative story being co-authored. This is still a clinical formulation — it draws on different material than a problem-focused one, not on no formulation at all.

Relative Influence Questioning: Mapping Both Directions

Relative influence questioning is one of narrative therapy’s most clinically useful tools precisely because it works in two directions, and both should show up in the formulation.

The problem’s influence on the client: How does the problem affect the client’s behavior, relationships, decisions, sense of identity, daily functioning, and hopes or values? This maps the scope of what the treatment is actually addressing.

The client’s influence on the problem: When has the client resisted or limited the problem’s influence? What skills, values, intentions, or relationships helped? What did the client do differently in those moments, and what does that response suggest about the client’s preferred identity? This second direction is where unique outcomes and the material for re-authoring typically come from — a formulation that only maps the problem’s influence and skips this side is missing half the picture.

Avoiding Over-Externalization

Externalizing the problem doesn’t mean denying the client’s symptoms, denying responsibility for behavior, minimizing risk, treating diagnoses as clinically irrelevant, or externalizing every aspect of the client’s experience regardless of fit. The clinician should preserve accountability, agency, safety, and clinical accuracy alongside externalizing language — externalization is a therapeutic stance toward how the problem is discussed and related to, not a literal claim that the problem exists independently of the client’s actions, choices, or clinical presentation.

Clinical Documentation Note: Externalizing language in the chart itself is worth being deliberate about — writing “the client’s relationship with Anxiety” instead of “the client’s anxiety symptoms” throughout the plan isn’t just stylistic; it keeps the documentation consistent with what’s actually happening in session.

Collaborative, Not Just Client-Centered

Collaboration in narrative therapy means more than asking the client what goal they want and documenting it. The clinician actively uses narrative practices to help the client investigate the dominant story, the problem’s influence, unique outcomes, values, intentions, skills, relationships, and possible preferred directions — the therapist has an active, skilled role in that investigation, even though the client remains the author of the resulting story. A treatment plan that simply records client-stated goals without this investigative process reflects client input, not genuinely narrative-therapy-adherent collaboration.

What Makes a Treatment Plan Genuinely Narrative Therapy?

Using narrative terminology in a plan doesn’t automatically make it narrative-therapy-adherent. A few quick checks:

• The client helped define and name the problem, rather than the clinician assigning a label.
• The problem is externalized rather than treated as synonymous with the person.
• The formulation documents both the problem’s influence and the client’s influence on the problem.
• At least one unique outcome is identified and clinically developed, not just noted in passing.
• Goals reflect the client’s preferred story, values, intentions, skills, and relationships — not a generic symptom-reduction target.
• Re-authoring and thickening the preferred story is documented as an ongoing process, not a one-time event.
• Diagnosis and medical necessity remain documented accurately where required.
• Progress isn’t reduced exclusively to a symptom score.
• The client’s own language and authorship remain visible in how the plan gets revised over time.

Documenting Diagnosis and Medical Necessity in a Model That Questions Pathologizing Language

Narrative therapy’s critique of diagnostic and pathologizing discourse is more explicit than in most other modalities — the model is influenced by post-structuralist ideas about how dominant cultural narratives, including psychiatric diagnosis, can become internalized as identity rather than remaining a description of a specific difficulty. That critique is a legitimate part of the clinical conversation with the client. It is not, however, a reason to treat the treatment plan’s diagnostic summary as optional.

Most clinical and payer contexts still require an accurate diagnosis and a concise medical-necessity rationale, and that requirement doesn’t go away because the therapeutic stance toward the diagnosis is a critical one. What changes is proportion and framing: the diagnosis section should be accurate and specific, while the bulk of the plan’s clinical reasoning — the formulation, goals, and progress-monitoring sections — should reflect the externalized problem and the client’s emerging preferred story, not a diagnosis-centered narrative. A plan that skips diagnostic rigor because “narrative therapy doesn’t pathologize” misrepresents what the documentation is required to do; a plan that lets diagnosis-centered language dominate the formulation misrepresents how the therapy itself is conducted.

It can help to think of these as answering different questions rather than competing for the same space in the plan:

Documentation requirements vary by jurisdiction, profession, organization, and payer. The diagnostic and coding examples in this guide illustrate clinical documentation principles and shouldn’t be treated as universal payer or legal requirements — verify current requirements for your specific setting.

Selecting Narrative Therapy Delivery for Setting and Presentation

Unlike CBT, DBT, or EMDR, narrative therapy doesn’t organize around diagnosis-specific manualized protocols — it’s applied broadly across individual, family, and community settings. Current outcome research is real but still developing, with evidence quality varying meaningfully by population and study design.

Evidence in this area actually spans three different questions worth keeping separate: evidence for narrative therapy as a psychotherapy approach generally, evidence for narrative therapy applied to specific presenting problems or populations, and evidence specifically supporting particular narrative treatment-planning practices. Evidence supporting narrative therapy as a clinical approach shouldn’t be interpreted as evidence that every specific narrative practice, documentation strategy, or treatment-planning technique has been independently validated for every population or diagnosis — the table below speaks mainly to the second question, population-level evidence, which is the most directly relevant to treatment planning.

Clinical takeaway: Narrative therapy’s evidence base is real but genuinely more limited than CBT, DBT, or EMDR’s — the treatment plan should reflect honest confidence in what’s established versus what’s promising but still developing, rather than treating “narrative therapy works” as a uniform, well-established claim.

Establish Clinical Necessity Through Functional Impairment

Treatment plans should document more than the presence of a concern — they should describe how it interferes with functioning, even within a model that spends most of its clinical attention on the client’s relationship to the externalized problem rather than the problem’s clinical features. Describe the observable consequence: work performance affected by the problem’s influence, withdrawal from relationships, or disrupted daily routines. This section should be accurate and specific, but proportionate — a few clear sentences connecting diagnosis to functional impact, not an extended problem-saturated narrative that runs counter to how the therapy itself is conducted.

Creating Measurable Narrative Therapy Goals

Effective treatment goals should be individualized, collaborative, and measurable — and in narrative therapy specifically, they should be built from the client’s own externalized language and identified unique outcomes rather than a clinician-generated symptom-reduction target. SMART principles can help make a goal observable and reviewable, but they shouldn’t override the client’s own language for the problem or their preferred story — a technically well-formed goal that doesn’t reflect the client’s own naming isn’t a narrative therapy goal.

Narrative Therapy Goal Examples

The following goal examples map onto narrative therapy’s signature practices, since — as the sections above illustrate — the goal itself should come from the client’s own externalized language and identified unique outcomes, not a diagnostic category. Not every narrative therapy goal needs to be framed around symptom elimination — goals oriented around preferred identity, relationships, and agency are equally legitimate.

Goal 1: Externalize the Problem and Map Its Influence

Typically an early-treatment focus, establishing the language the rest of treatment will build on.

Long-Term Goal: Client will externalize the presenting problem and describe its influence on their life with specificity.

Possible Objectives:

• Collaboratively name the externalized problem in the client’s own words.
• Map at least two specific ways the problem influences the client’s thoughts, relationships, or behavior.
• Map at least one way the client has influenced or resisted the problem, however small.
• Demonstrate use of externalized language independently when describing the problem in session.

Possible Interventions: Externalizing conversations and relative-influence questioning; collaborative naming of the problem.

Observable Indicator: Client independently uses externalized language to describe the problem in at least two consecutive sessions.

Review Timeframe: Typically reviewed within the first 2–4 sessions.

Goal 2: Identify and Thicken Unique Outcomes

Often introduced once the problem has been externalized and its influence mapped.

Long-Term Goal: Client will identify and build a detailed, values-connected alternative story from identified unique outcomes.

Possible Objectives:

• Identify at least one experience per week in which the externalized problem had less influence, and document what the client did that contributed to that outcome.
• Describe what the unique outcome says about the client’s skills, values, or intentions.
• Connect the unique outcome to the client’s history and other relationships that support it.
• Deliberately create conditions for a similar unique outcome to occur again between sessions.

Possible Interventions: Unique-outcome exploration and re-authoring conversations; therapeutic letters documenting the emerging alternative story.

Observable Indicator: At least four documented unique outcomes over four weeks, reviewed collaboratively at treatment-plan review.

Review Timeframe: Reviewed at each treatment-plan review, typically every 4–8 weeks.

Goal 3: Involve Significant Relationships in the Emerging Story

Often introduced later in treatment, once an alternative story has taken clearer shape.

Long-Term Goal: Client will draw on significant relationships to further support and witness their preferred story.

Possible Objectives:

• Identify a person, present or absent, whose relationship with the client supports the emerging alternative story.
• Explore how that relationship contributes to the client’s preferred identity.
• With the client’s consent, consider an outsider-witness or re-membering conversation involving that person.
• Report on the impact of that conversation on the client’s sense of their own story.

Possible Interventions: Re-membering conversations; outsider-witness practices and definitional ceremonies, with appropriate consent and clinical judgment about fit.

Observable Indicator: Client identifies and discusses at least one supportive relationship’s role in their preferred story per treatment-plan review.

Review Timeframe: Reviewed at each treatment-plan review.

Goal 4: Strengthen Preferred Identity and Sense of Agency

Can be introduced alongside or after the goals above; not every goal needs a symptom-elimination frame.

Long-Term Goal: Client will develop a more detailed preferred story of themselves consistent with their own stated values.

Possible Objectives:

• Identify at least two experiences per month that support the client’s preferred identity (e.g., “capable,” “values-directed”).
• Identify at least two ways the client has influenced or resisted the externalized problem between treatment-plan reviews.
• Articulate, in the client’s own words, how their preferred story has developed since treatment began.

Possible Interventions: Re-authoring conversations; scaffolding conversations connecting known experiences to newly possible ones.

Observable Indicator: Client articulates a more detailed, specific preferred-identity narrative at each review compared to the prior review.

Review Timeframe: Reviewed at each treatment-plan review.

Remember that these examples are starting points. The specific externalized language, unique outcomes, and goals should reflect this client’s own words and story — goals imported wholesale from a diagnostic category rather than the client’s own language don’t reflect narrative-therapy-adherent treatment planning. The same underlying goal structure can be adapted across presentations — for example, externalizing “The Sadness” for depression, “The Nightmares” or “It” for trauma-related concerns, or “The Comparison” for identity or self-worth concerns — as documentation examples of how the language adapts, not as claims that narrative therapy has equivalent evidence support across all of these presentations.

Narrative Therapy Interventions and When to Use Them

Documentation Language Clinicians Can Use

Narrative therapy has its own documentation vocabulary. Each line below connects a clinical finding to what it means for the plan.

• Externalized naming: “Client named the presenting concern ‘The Worry’ in session; documentation throughout the plan will reflect this externalized language.”
• Relative influence questioning: “Mapped ‘The Worry’s’ influence on decision-making at work; client identified two specific instances where they resisted its influence.”
• Unique outcome: “Client identified a unique outcome — successfully leading a work presentation — not accounted for by the dominant story of incompetence.”
• Re-authoring progress: “Alternative story of competence is developing detail; client connected this week’s unique outcome to a broader pattern of preparation and follow-through going back several years.”
• Re-membering/outsider witness: “With client consent, invited [supportive colleague] to reflect on the client’s growth as an outsider witness; client reported the reflection strengthened their own sense of the alternative story.”

Document This, Not That

Common Documentation Mistakes When Writing a Narrative Therapy Treatment Plan

Even experienced clinicians can develop documentation habits that reduce the clinical usefulness of a narrative therapy treatment plan — the following examples highlight common mistakes and how to strengthen the documentation.

Clinical Documentation Note: The most common documentation gap in narrative therapy treatment plans isn’t the goals section — it’s the risk section, for much the same reason it shows up in other strengths-based models: an optimistic, externalizing therapeutic stance can make explicit risk assessment feel like it’s working against the approach. It isn’t, and the two belong in clearly separate sections of the chart.

Conclusion: Creating Effective Narrative Therapy Treatment Plans That Support Meaningful Clinical Progress

An effective narrative therapy treatment plan does more than list goals — it documents the externalized problem, the client’s identified unique outcomes, and the alternative story being co-authored over treatment, while still meeting the diagnostic and risk-documentation standards any treatment plan requires. When thoughtfully developed, it resolves the genuine tension between narrative therapy’s critique of pathologizing language and standard documentation requirements, rather than ignoring one in favor of the other.

In practice, this generally follows a workflow: assess → externalize the problem → map its influence in both directions → identify unique outcomes → develop the preferred story through re-authoring → establish measurable goals and objectives → select the narrative practices that fit → monitor narrative and functional progress together → reassess risk, diagnosis, and medical necessity → revise the plan collaboratively as the client’s story develops.

Clinicians should remember that narrative therapy treatment plans, like any other, are living documents — and given how central the client’s own language is to this model, they should be revised as the client’s externalized naming and preferred story develop, not left to drift back toward diagnosis-centered phrasing out of habit. Regular review of the externalized problem, identified unique outcomes, and the thickening alternative story helps ensure that treatment remains genuinely narrative in approach rather than narrative in name only.

References

• Hu, G., Han, B., Gains, H., & Jia, Y. (2024). Effectiveness of narrative therapy for depressive symptoms in adults with somatic disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 24(4), Article 100520. Resource
• Karibwende, F., Niyonsenga, J., Biracyaza, E., Nyirinkwaya, S., Hitayezu, I., Sebatukura, G. S., Ntete, J. M., & Mutabaruka, J. (2023). Efficacy of narrative therapy for orphan and abandoned children with anxiety and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders in Rwanda: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 78, Article 101802. Resource
• White, M. (2007). Maps of Narrative Practice. W. W. Norton & Company. Resource
• White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. W. W. Norton & Company. Resource