Internal Family Systems (IFS): What MFT Students Should Know
Internal Family Systems (IFS): What MFT Students Should Know
If you are exploring Marriage and Family Therapy graduate programs in California, you have likely encountered Internal Family Systems (IFS) on program websites, in recommended reading lists, and in conversations with clinicians. IFS has become one of the most widely discussed therapeutic models in the field over the past decade, and prospective MFT students increasingly want to know what it is, where it came from, how well it works, and how to evaluate whether a program will actually teach them to use it with clients. This guide offers a research-informed overview of IFS for students who are making decisions about their clinical education. For a broader look at factors to consider when choosing among MFT programs, see our guide to finding the best MFT program in California for you.
What Is Internal Family Systems Therapy?
Internal Family Systems is a therapeutic model that views the mind as naturally composed of multiple sub-personalities, or "parts," each with its own perspective, feelings, and motivations. These parts interact with one another in patterns that resemble the dynamics of a family system, which is why the model bears its name. IFS proposes that beneath these parts lies a core "Self" characterized by qualities such as compassion, curiosity, calm, and clarity. The goal of IFS therapy is not to eliminate or suppress parts but to help clients access their Self so they can understand, relate to, and heal the parts that have taken on extreme or protective roles, often in response to difficult life experiences.
IFS identifies three general categories of parts. Exiles are parts that carry painful emotions and memories, often from childhood, and are typically pushed out of conscious awareness by the system. Managers are protective parts that try to maintain control and prevent the person from being overwhelmed by the Exiles' pain. Firefighters are reactive protective parts that emerge when Exiles threaten to break through, often driving impulsive behaviors such as substance use, binge eating, or emotional withdrawal. These categories are not rigid diagnoses but rather a framework for understanding the internal conflicts that clients bring to therapy. One of the model's distinguishing features is its insistence that there are no "bad" parts; every part, even those driving destructive behavior, is understood to have a positive intent within the system.
For MFT students, IFS is particularly relevant because it is rooted in systems thinking, the same intellectual tradition that underlies Marriage and Family Therapy as a discipline. Where traditional family therapy examines patterns of interaction among family members, IFS applies those same systemic principles to the relationships among a person's internal parts. This connection between external family systems and internal psychological systems makes IFS a natural fit for MFT training and clinical practice. However, understanding a model conceptually is different from being able to use it with clients, and one of the challenges prospective students face is distinguishing programs that teach therapy as a performable skill from those that teach it primarily as an academic subject. For more on that distinction and why it matters, see our post on whether your MFT program is actually teaching therapy. To learn more about how systems thinking informs MFT training broadly, see the MFT Program Overview at Sentio University.
The History of IFS: From Family Therapy to Parts Work
IFS was developed in the 1980s by Richard C. Schwartz, PhD, who was trained as a structural and strategic family therapist. Schwartz was working with clients with eating disorders when he noticed that many of them spontaneously described their internal experiences using the language of "parts," referring to conflicting voices, impulses, and emotional states as though they were distinct entities within them. Rather than interpreting this language as pathological, Schwartz began listening carefully and applying the systems concepts he already knew from family therapy. He tracked sequences of interaction among these internal parts the same way he had tracked interaction patterns among family members.
Over time, Schwartz observed consistent patterns across clients. Certain types of parts appeared repeatedly, as did characteristic relationships among them. He also discovered that when clients could access what he came to call the Self, a state of centered awareness distinct from any part, they could relate to their own internal experiences with a compassion and clarity that facilitated healing. This led to the development of IFS as a structured therapeutic approach with its own theory, techniques, and training model. Schwartz published the foundational text, Internal Family Systems Therapy, through Guilford Press in 1995, and founded the Center for Self Leadership (later renamed the IFS Institute) in 2000 to train clinicians in the model.
The model's growth accelerated significantly after psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk featured IFS in his widely read 2014 book The Body Keeps the Score, which endorsed the model as an effective approach for emotional regulation and trauma recovery. Since then, IFS has expanded from a niche model into a widely practiced approach with training programs operating internationally. As of this writing, the IFS Institute remains the primary certifying body for IFS practitioners, offering multiple levels of professional training.
What Does the Research Say About IFS?
The evidence base for IFS is growing, though it remains smaller than that of more established modalities such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or psychodynamic therapy. In 2015, IFS was listed on SAMHSA's National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP), based on a proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted by Nancy Shadick, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School. That study randomized 79 patients with rheumatoid arthritis to either an IFS intervention or an education control group over 36 weeks and found that IFS participants showed improvements in physical functioning and reductions in depressive symptoms (Shadick et al., 2013). NREPP's independent review rated IFS "effective" for improving general functioning and well-being, and "promising" for reducing depression, anxiety, physical health symptoms, and improving personal resilience. The NREPP registry was subsequently discontinued by SAMHSA in 2018, but the original review findings remain part of the model's evidentiary record.
More recently, a 2021 pilot feasibility study of IFS for 17 adults with PTSD and a history of childhood trauma found significant reductions in symptoms, with 92% of completers no longer meeting diagnostic criteria after 16 weeks. A 2025 scoping review published in Clinical Psychologist analyzed 27 peer-reviewed studies of IFS, including two RCTs, five quasi-experimental studies, and 17 case studies, and identified IFS as a "promising therapeutic approach" particularly for PTSD, depression, and chronic pain (Buys, 2025). The authors noted, however, that further large-scale, rigorous studies are needed to establish efficacy more definitively.
For MFT students evaluating therapeutic models, this means IFS sits in a space that is common for newer approaches: it has meaningful preliminary evidence, strong clinical endorsement from practitioners, and growing research momentum, but it does not yet have the depth of RCT evidence that supports CBT or some other established modalities. This is not a reason to dismiss IFS, but it is a reason to understand it within the broader landscape of evidence-based practice. Research consistently shows that the therapeutic relationship and the therapist's relational skills have a far greater impact on outcomes than the specific model used. As Tony Rousmaniere, PsyD, President of Sentio University, has noted, "research suggests that therapists' relational skills have more than ten times the impact on the outcome of therapy than their choice of a model or adherence to a model" (Rousmaniere, 2019, p. 3). This finding, drawn from decades of psychotherapy outcome research, suggests that learning how to deliver any therapeutic model skillfully matters more than which model you choose. For prospective MFT students, the implication is that program quality, specifically how well a program trains you to actually perform therapy, may matter more than which specific models appear on the syllabus. For more on how to evaluate whether an MFT program actually prepares you for licensure, see our research-informed guide.
How IFS Works in Practice: Two Case Examples
To illustrate how IFS works in clinical practice, here are two composite case examples. The details in both examples have been modified to protect client privacy.
A woman in her mid-30s entered therapy after years of chronic anxiety and difficulty maintaining close relationships. She described a pattern of withdrawing emotionally whenever a partner expressed frustration or disappointment with her, even over small things. In IFS terms, a protective Manager part was stepping in to preempt the possibility of rejection by shutting down emotionally before she could be hurt. Through IFS therapy, the client learned to notice when this protective part was activated and to ask it, from a place of curiosity rather than frustration, what it was trying to protect her from. Over time, she was able to access an Exile part that carried deep shame from childhood experiences of being criticized by a parent. As the client's Self built a compassionate relationship with this younger, wounded part, the Manager part gradually relaxed its grip, allowing her to stay emotionally present in her adult relationships. The therapist's role throughout was not to interpret or explain but to facilitate the client's own internal process of discovery and healing.
In a separate case, a man in his late 20s sought therapy for binge drinking that had begun to affect his job performance and his marriage. He described the drinking as something that "just takes over," a characterization that maps naturally onto IFS's concept of a Firefighter part. The drinking functioned as an emergency response to overwhelming stress and shame that the client could not otherwise manage. Through IFS work, the client identified a Firefighter part that would activate after work conflicts, flooding him with the urge to drink, and an Exile part that carried intense feelings of inadequacy rooted in early experiences of academic failure. As the client developed Self-leadership and began to address the Exile's pain directly, the Firefighter's need to intervene with alcohol gradually diminished. The therapist worked collaboratively with the client, not by demanding that the drinking part "stop," but by helping the client understand what the part was trying to do for him and addressing the underlying pain that drove it. Therapy also included couples sessions in which the client's partner learned to understand his internal system, which improved their communication and reduced conflict.
These examples reflect the kind of clinical work that MFT students may encounter in practicum and in their post-graduation associate period. For students considering how different training environments prepare them for this kind of work, the structure of a program's practicum matters enormously. An integrated practicum where supervision, classroom instruction, and clinical work are connected allows students to practice approaches like IFS in a supported environment rather than trying to learn them from textbooks alone. For a deeper look at how supervision quality varies across programs and what to ask about it, see our guide on how to evaluate MFT supervision quality when choosing a program.
Why IFS Matters for MFT Students Specifically
Marriage and Family Therapy, as a profession, is grounded in systems theory. MFT students learn to see presenting problems not as isolated symptoms but as expressions of relational patterns within families, couples, and broader social contexts. IFS extends this systems lens inward, proposing that the same dynamics, including polarization, triangulation, and protective coalitions, that occur among family members also occur among a person's internal parts. For MFT students, this means IFS is not a departure from systems thinking but a deepening of it.
This has practical implications for clinical work. MFT graduates work with couples and families, and they also maintain substantial individual caseloads. IFS gives clinicians a framework for individual therapy that is conceptually consistent with the relational and systemic perspective they bring to couples and family work. A therapist who understands how a client's internal system operates can also help that client's partner or family members understand the same dynamics, which can improve communication and reduce the cycle of reactivity that often drives relational conflict. The second case example above illustrates this point: the couple's work became more productive once both partners could understand the internal parts driving the client's drinking.
Research on therapist development also suggests that learning to work with one's own internal experience is central to clinical effectiveness. As Tony Rousmaniere, PsyD, has written, "The work of doing therapy is psychologically hard for the therapist. To be helpful and effective with a broad range of clients, therapists must develop their inner skills and a higher level of psychological capacity, akin to how athletes must develop advanced fitness" (Rousmaniere, 2019, p. 11). IFS provides a structured language and methodology for this kind of self-awareness, which is relevant not only to client work but also to the therapist's own professional development. The APA Essentials of Deliberate Practice book series, co-edited by Alexandre Vaz, PhD, and Tony Rousmaniere, PsyD, explores how therapists can build these skills across multiple therapeutic modalities. For more information about deliberate practice in psychotherapy training, see What Is Deliberate Practice at Sentio University.
Learning IFS in an MFT Program: What to Look For
If IFS is a model you want to learn during your graduate training, the key question is not whether a program mentions IFS on its website but how deeply IFS is integrated into the curriculum and clinical training. Some programs include a single course on IFS as an elective. Others integrate IFS concepts across multiple courses and provide practicum settings where students can use IFS with clients under supervision from clinicians trained in the model. The difference matters because therapy skills are not acquired through reading and lecture alone. As Alexandre Vaz, PhD, Chief Academic Officer at Sentio University, and Tony Rousmaniere, PsyD, have noted, "many graduate programs produce students who can talk or write about therapy quite adeptly yet still struggle to perform therapy optimally. This gap is precisely what deliberate practice aims to fill by consolidating declarative knowledge into procedural skill" (Rousmaniere & Vaz, 2025, p. 3).
When evaluating how a program teaches IFS, consider asking the following questions. Do faculty members have formal IFS training or certification? Is IFS taught in dedicated coursework, or is it integrated across the curriculum? Does the practicum site have supervisors who are experienced in IFS and can provide model-specific feedback on your clinical work? Can students use IFS with clients during their practicum, or is IFS taught only as classroom content without clinical application? These questions apply equally to any therapeutic model a student wants to learn, not just IFS. The answers will tell you whether a program's IFS instruction will translate into clinical skill or remain theoretical knowledge. One concrete indicator to look for is whether a program uses video recording of therapy sessions in supervision, which allows supervisors to observe exactly how a trainee is applying IFS techniques and provide targeted corrective feedback rather than relying on the trainee's memory of what happened. For more on why this matters, see our post on the role of video recording in MFT training.
Sentio University, a nonprofit MFT graduate school in Los Angeles, is one example of a program that incorporates IFS into its training model. IFS concepts and techniques are woven into Sentio's coursework alongside other evidence-informed approaches, and the program's practicum site, the Sentio Counseling Center, provides students with opportunities to apply IFS with clients under the guidance of faculty and supervisors who are knowledgeable in the model. Sentio's training is built around a deliberate practice methodology in which roughly half of nearly every class session is dedicated to active skills training (Rousmaniere & Vaz, 2025). This structure means that students do not simply learn about IFS in a lecture; they practice IFS skills through behavioral rehearsal with corrective feedback. All therapy sessions at the Sentio Counseling Center are videotaped, all students use routine outcome monitoring with every client at every session, and supervisors complete a rigorous 50-week video-based supervision training program (Rousmaniere & Vaz, 2025). This level of structured oversight applies to all therapeutic models students use in practicum, including IFS. For a detailed look at Sentio's MFT Program Overview, visit the program page.
Sentio's model represents one particular approach to MFT education. It is well suited for students who want intensive, skills-focused clinical training in a full-time format, but it is not designed for students who need part-time scheduling or federal financial aid. The purpose of describing it here is to give prospective students a concrete example of what integrated IFS training can look like within a deliberate practice framework, so they have a reference point when evaluating other programs. For answers to common questions about Sentio's structure and admissions, see the FAQ page.
IFS and the Broader Landscape of Evidence-Based Practice
One of the most common questions prospective MFT students ask about any therapeutic model is whether it is "evidence-based." This is a reasonable question, but the answer is more nuanced than a simple yes or no. The term "evidence-based practice" encompasses a range of evidence types, from large-scale randomized controlled trials to clinical case studies, practitioner consensus, and client preferences. IFS has achieved recognition as an evidence-based practice through its listing on SAMHSA's NREPP (prior to the registry's discontinuation) and through a growing body of published research. At the same time, its evidence base is still developing compared to more established approaches.
What the psychotherapy outcome research consistently demonstrates, across all models, is that the specific techniques associated with any given approach account for a relatively small portion of the variance in client outcomes. A much larger share of outcome variance is attributable to the therapeutic relationship, the therapist's interpersonal skills, and client factors. A landmark longitudinal study of 170 therapists treating 6,591 patients over up to 18 years found that therapists on average showed a small but statistically significant decline in client outcomes as experience accumulated, though 39.41% of therapists did improve over time (Goldberg, Rousmaniere, et al., 2016). The authors concluded that "assessing only the quantity of experience, with no measure of the quality of experience" was a likely explanation for the overall pattern (Goldberg, Rousmaniere, et al., 2016, p. 8). For MFT students, this research suggests that the quality of training you receive in how to perform therapy is likely more important than which theoretical orientation a program emphasizes.
In a separate study, researchers found that when a community mental health agency combined routine outcome monitoring with deliberate practice and ongoing consultation, therapist effectiveness measurably improved at a rate of d = 0.035 per year, and this improvement was attributable to individual therapists getting better at their work rather than to the agency hiring better clinicians over time (Goldberg, Babins-Wagner, Rousmaniere, et al., 2016). This finding is relevant to the IFS conversation because it suggests that the conditions under which you learn and practice a model, including structured feedback, outcome tracking, and dedicated skill rehearsal, may matter as much as the model itself. For more on how outcome monitoring integrates with clinical training, see our guide to Feedback Informed Treatment at Sentio University.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy?
IFS is a therapeutic model developed by Richard C. Schwartz, PhD, in the 1980s. It views the mind as composed of multiple "parts," each with its own feelings, beliefs, and motivations, and a core "Self" that can lead the internal system with compassion and clarity. IFS is used to treat a range of conditions including trauma, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and substance use. It was listed as an evidence-based practice on SAMHSA's NREPP in 2015, and a 2025 scoping review identified it as a promising approach for PTSD, depression, and chronic pain (Buys, 2025).
Is IFS relevant to Marriage and Family Therapy specifically?
Yes. IFS grew directly out of family systems therapy and applies the same systemic principles, including concepts like polarization, triangulation, and protective roles, to the relationships among a person's internal parts. For MFT students and practitioners, IFS provides a framework for individual therapy that is conceptually consistent with the relational and systemic perspective that defines the MFT profession. It is also used in couples and family work, where helping each partner understand their own internal system can reduce reactivity and improve communication.
How much evidence supports IFS?
The evidence base for IFS is growing but still developing. It includes a proof-of-concept RCT on rheumatoid arthritis patients (Shadick et al., 2013), a pilot feasibility study showing significant PTSD symptom reduction, and additional feasibility studies on co-occurring PTSD and substance use. A 2025 scoping review found 27 peer-reviewed studies, including two RCTs, and characterized IFS as a promising treatment (Buys, 2025). Further large-scale trials are needed. However, psychotherapy outcome research consistently shows that the therapist's relational skills and the quality of the therapeutic relationship account for far more outcome variance than specific model techniques, which means how well you learn to deliver any model may matter more than which model you choose. For a broader look at the research on therapist skill development, see Sentio's books and research on deliberate practice.
Do all MFT programs teach IFS?
No. Some programs include IFS as part of their curriculum, either as a dedicated course or integrated across multiple courses, while others do not address it. Among programs that do teach IFS, the depth of instruction varies. Some offer only a lecture-based overview, while others provide supervised clinical practice with IFS under the guidance of trained faculty. If learning IFS during graduate school is important to you, ask each program specifically how IFS is taught, whether faculty have formal IFS training, and whether you will have opportunities to use IFS with clients in your practicum.
Can I get IFS training outside of my MFT program?
Yes. The IFS Institute offers its own multi-level training and certification programs for licensed and pre-licensed clinicians. Many therapists pursue IFS Institute training during or after their graduate education. However, learning a therapeutic model through dedicated post-graduate training is different from learning it within a graduate program where you have access to supervised clinical practice, video review of your sessions, and expert corrective feedback. If your MFT program does not offer IFS training, post-graduate IFS Institute courses are a well-regarded option. For context on how MFT program structure affects clinical skill development, see the Sentio MFT Program Overview.
What is the difference between IFS and other "parts-based" therapies?
Several therapeutic approaches recognize internal multiplicity, including Gestalt therapy, ego state therapy, and schema therapy. IFS is distinguished by its emphasis on the systemic relationships among parts, its non-pathologizing stance (there are no "bad" parts), and its concept of the Self as an undamaged core that can actively lead the healing process. Unlike approaches that rely primarily on cognitive insight or behavioral change, IFS is an experiential therapy in which clients engage directly with their parts in the present moment to facilitate emotional shifts.
Is IFS only used for trauma treatment?
No. While IFS has gained particular prominence in trauma treatment, especially following its endorsement in The Body Keeps the Score, it is applied to a wide range of clinical presentations including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use, chronic pain, and relationship difficulties. The model is designed to be flexible enough to address any condition that involves internal conflict or extreme protective patterns, which encompasses most clinical presentations MFT students will encounter.
How do I know if a program is teaching IFS effectively?
Ask whether the program includes IFS in its curriculum, whether faculty have formal IFS training or certification, and whether the practicum site provides supervisors who can offer model-specific feedback when you use IFS with clients. The most effective clinical training connects classroom learning to supervised practice. As Hanna Levenson, PhD, observed after studying a deliberate practice supervision model, "The supervisor isn't doing the training; the skill rehearsal is doing the training" (Levenson, 2024, p. 4, as reported). Programs that allow you to practice IFS skills with clients, receive video-based feedback, and refine your approach over time will prepare you more effectively than programs that teach IFS only through lectures and readings. For more on evaluating supervision quality across MFT programs, see our detailed guide.
Making Your Decision
If Internal Family Systems is a model that resonates with you, the question is not just whether a program lists IFS in its course catalog but whether the program will give you the opportunity to develop real clinical skill with IFS, or any model, through structured practice, feedback, and supervised client work. The research on therapist development is clear: clinical experience alone does not guarantee improvement. A longitudinal study of 114 trainees found small but positive growth in client outcomes over time, but that improvement was limited to less-distressed clients; trainees showed no measurable improvement in working with more severely distressed clients across their entire training period (Owen, Wampold, Kopta, Rousmaniere, & Miller, 2016). What makes the difference is the quality of training: deliberate, structured skill practice with expert corrective feedback and consistent outcome monitoring.
As you compare programs, it is also worth asking how open each institution is about its training methods, clinical outcomes, and program data. A program that voluntarily publishes information about its supervision model, faculty qualifications, and student outcomes gives you a much better basis for comparison than one that shares only marketing materials. For more on what institutional openness looks like in practice and why it matters for your decision, see our post on what program transparency looks like in MFT education.
The single best way to evaluate any MFT program, whether you are interested in IFS, deliberate practice, or any other aspect of clinical training, is to ask to visit a live class or observe an online session. Every program should allow prospective students to do this, and the ones that are confident in the quality of their teaching will actively encourage it. Sitting in on a real class, even for an hour, will tell you more about a program's culture, rigor, and fit for you than any brochure, website, or admissions presentation ever could. If a program is reluctant to let you observe a class, that is worth noting. The programs that welcome your presence in the classroom are the ones that have nothing to hide and everything to show. For a comprehensive look at questions to ask when comparing California MFT programs, see our guide to MFT programs in California.
References
Buys, M. E. (2025). Exploring the evidence for Internal Family Systems therapy: A scoping review of current research, gaps, and future directions. Clinical Psychologist, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13284207.2025.2533127
Goldberg, S. B., Babins-Wagner, R., Rousmaniere, T., Berzins, S., Hoyt, W. T., Whipple, J. L., Miller, S. D., & Wampold, B. E. (2016). Creating a climate for therapist improvement: A case study of an agency focused on outcomes and deliberate practice. Psychotherapy, 53(3), 367-375. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000060
Goldberg, S. B., Rousmaniere, T., Miller, S. D., Whipple, J., Nielsen, S. L., Hoyt, W. T., & Wampold, B. E. (2016). Do psychotherapists improve with time and experience? A longitudinal analysis of outcomes in a clinical setting. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000131
Levenson, H. (2024, May). What deliberate practice supervision has to offer traditional supervision: Nine take-home messages. Psychotherapy Bulletin, 59(3), 55-59. https://societyforpsychotherapy.org/what-deliberate-practice-supervision-has-to-offer-traditional-supervision-nine-take-home-messages/
Owen, J., Wampold, B. E., Kopta, M., Rousmaniere, T., & Miller, S. D. (2016). As good as it gets? Therapy outcomes of trainees over time. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(1), 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000112
Rousmaniere, T. (2019). Mastering the inner skills of psychotherapy: A deliberate practice manual. Gold Lantern Press. ISBN: 978-1-7325657-0-8. https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Inner-Skills-Psychotherapy-Deliberate/dp/1732565708
Rousmaniere, T., & Vaz, A. (2025, March). Sentio's clinic-to-classroom method: Bridging deliberate practice and clinical training. Psychotherapy Bulletin, 60(2), 79-84. https://societyforpsychotherapy.org/sentios-clinic-to-classroom-methodbridging-deliberate-practice-and-clinical-training/
Schwartz, R. C. (1995). Internal Family Systems therapy. Guilford Press. ISBN: 978-1-57230-272-3. https://www.guilford.com/books/Internal-Family-Systems-Therapy/Schwartz-Sweezy/9781462541461
Schwartz, R. C., & Sweezy, M. (2020). Internal Family Systems therapy (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. ISBN: 978-1-4625-4146-1. https://www.amazon.com/Internal-Family-Systems-Therapy-Second/dp/1462541461
Shadick, N. A., Sowell, N. F., Frits, M. L., Hoffman, S. M., Hartz, S. A., Booth, F. D., Sweezy, M., Rogers, P. R., Dubin, R. L., Atkinson, J. C., Friedman, A. L., Augusto, F., Iannaccone, C. K., Fossel, A. H., Quinn, G., Cui, J., Losina, E., & Schwartz, R. C. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of an Internal Family Systems-based psychotherapeutic intervention on outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: A proof-of-concept study. The Journal of Rheumatology, 40(11), 1831-1841. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.121465
Vaz, A., & Rousmaniere, T. (2022). Clarifying deliberate practice for mental health training. Sentio University. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MFdWU-fRl-2EKN2rdvFsExPcJ8-O0C_A/view
IFS Resources
IFS Institute: https://ifs-institute.com/
Foundation for Self Leadership (IFS Research): https://www.foundationifs.org/research
About the Authors
Tony Rousmaniere, PsyD is the President of Sentio University and Executive Director of the Sentio Counseling Center. He is Past-President of the psychotherapy division of the American Psychological Association and the author of over 20 books on deliberate practice and psychotherapy training, including The Essentials of Deliberate Practice book series (APA Books). He is a licensed psychologist in California and Washington. Learn more
Alexandre Vaz, PhD is the Chief Academic Officer of Sentio University and cofounder of the Deliberate Practice Institute. He is co-editor of The Essentials of Deliberate Practice book series (APA Books) and the author of over a dozen books on deliberate practice and psychotherapy training. Dr. Vaz is the founder and host of Psychotherapy Expert Talks. He is a licensed clinical psychologist in Portugal. Learn more
