Introducing the Developmental Consultation Framework (DCF): A Vygotskian Model for Rubric-Anchored, Scaffolded Clinical Consultation

Introducing the Developmental Consultation Framework (DCF): A Vygotskian Model for Rubric-Anchored, Scaffolded Clinical Consultation

 Author: Kathy Couch, LCSW, FT | Rewired360

Publication Date: February 2026

Category: Original Clinical Contribution

Series: The Rooted Practice — Clinical Frameworks

Keywords: developmental consultation, Zone of Proximal Development, scaffolded supervision, trauma consultation, grief therapy, rubric-anchored positioning

 Clinical consultation in trauma and grief communities practice has lacked a coherent developmental framework capable of positioning the consultee and targeting intervention with precision. The Developmental Consultation Framework (DCF) addresses this gap by integrating three components:

1. Consultee-led case presentation as a real-time developmental assessment,
2. Rubric-anchored developmental positioning that locates the consultee within a progression of clinical competence, and
3. Scaffolded intervention targeted to the next developmental level only.

Grounded in Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, Freire’s problem-posing pedagogy, and established consultation models including Bernard and Goodyear’s Discrimination Model and Falender and Shafranske’s competency-based supervision framework, the DCF offers consultants and supervisors a structured methodology for translating developmental theory into clinical practice. This paper formally introduces the framework, describes its theoretical foundations and three components, and identifies directions for future development.

1. Introduction: The Missing Developmental Map

Clinical consultation — the formal practice of a trained consultant supporting a clinician’s development of competence with specific populations, modalities, or case presentations — has long been positioned as a cornerstone of professional development in trauma and specialty practice. Yet despite its centrality, consultation has often proceeded without a coherent developmental map. Consultants have relied on expertise, intuition, and experience to navigate complex case presentations, without a systematic framework for determining where a consultee is in their development or what kind of intervention will most effectively move them forward.

 This gap has clinical consequences. In practice, I have seen how the absence of a clear developmental framework in consultation quietly creates relationship disruption that often goes unnamed. When consultants rely primarily on expertise, intuition, and personal experience—without a systematic way to assess where a consultee is developmentally—we may unintentionally misattune to what the consultee actually needs. Without a developmental map, consultation risks two common failure modes: intervention that is pitched above the consultee’s current level — leaving them behind — or intervention that consolidates what the consultee already knows without extending their capacity — leaving them stuck. Neither failure is the product of a poor consultant. Both are the product of a missing framework.

Without a developmental map, even expert consultation risks consolidating what the consultee already knows — or pitching intervention too far above their current edge to integrate. The missing ingredient is not expertise. It is structure.

The Developmental Consultation Framework offers exactly that structure. It is an original clinical contribution that integrates established theory — Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, Freire’s problem-posing pedagogy, and published consultation models — into a three-component model specifically designed for use in clinical consultation with trauma and grief practitioners. I began thinking about the Developmental Consultation Framework because I kept noticing the same problem in consultation: talented, committed clinicians were not always moving forward in the way they could be. Sometimes they left sessions energized and clearer. Other times they left confused, discouraged, or unchanged. I realized we did not have a clear structure to determine where a clinician was developmentally or how to match feedback to that level.

The Developmental Consultation Framework grew out of that observation. It offers a structured, three-component model for trauma and grief consultation that integrates established theory—Lev Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, Paulo Freire’s problem-posing pedagogy, and existing consultation models—into a practical framework designed to move clinicians forward with clarity and precision.  This did not come from theory first. It came from two decades of sitting with consultees, noticing when something was working and when something wasn’t, and gradually becoming able to name what the difference was.

The three components described below are not constructs I applied to consultation. They are what I found when I looked carefully at what effective consultation actually does. The theoretical grounding came afterward — not as a source, but as a confirmation. Vygotsky and Freire gave me language for what I had already observed. 

1. Theoretical Foundations
2. Vygotsky and the Zone of Proximal Development

Let’s first explore Lev Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development as the developmental engine of this approach. Vygotsky defined this zone as the distance between what a learner can do independently and what they can accomplish with skilled guidance (Vygotsky, 1978). This is not a static trait. It is a dynamic relational space that opens between the learner and the more capable other. Effective instruction — and, this framework argues, effective consultation — operates within this space.

The clinical implication is precise: the consultant’s task is not to teach what they know. It is to locate the developmental edge of what the consultee is becoming capable of, and to intervene exactly there. Not behind it — that consolidates existing competence without growth. Not far ahead of it — that overwhelms without integration. Within it. One step forward. That is the whole of the scaffolding logic.

Scaffolded intervention is not about the consultant’s knowledge. It is about the consultee’s developmental edge. The consultant who offers everything they know has confused generosity with calibration.

1. Freire and Problem-Posing Pedagogy

Next, we move to Paulo Freire’s critique of the ‘banking’ model of education — in which the teacher deposits knowledge into a passive recipient — resonates directly with consultation practice (Freire, 1970). Freire proposed problem-posing education as an alternative to top-down instruction: a pedagogy in which educator and learner examine reality together, generating knowledge through dialogue rather than transmission. I have seen this same dynamic emerge in consultation communities at their best—when consultant and consultee think collaboratively about the clinical moment, examine stuck points together, and allow insight to develop through shared inquiry rather than one-directional correction. In those spaces, learning is not delivered; it is constructed in relationship.

This framework adopts Freire’s problem-posing stance as its relational orientation. The consultant does not deliver answers. They pose the case as a shared problem — asking questions, surfacing complexity, and drawing out the consultee’s existing knowledge before offering targeted scaffolding. This is not merely a stylistic preference. It is clinically functional: consultee-led presentation, guided by genuine inquiry from the consultant, generates more accurate developmental data than consultant-led questioning or directive feedback.

 There is something else in Freire worth naming for consultation specifically. The banking model does not only fail to educate — it communicates a relationship in which the learner is a passive vessel. Porges’ (2011) polyvagal framework  precisely how that communication travels. Through neuroception — the nervous system’s continuous, unconscious scanning of the relational environment for cues of safety or threat — the consultee reads the power dynamic of the consultation encounter before any cognitive processing begins. This is not interpretation. It is physiology. A consultee entering a consultation structured around expert delivery and evaluative positioning does not first think “I am being assessed” and then feel guarded. Their nervous system registers the relational cues first — the consultant’s pace, their certainty, the degree to which the consultee’s own framing is received or reorganized — and the window of tolerance for learning either opens or narrows accordingly.

Porges’ research on the social engagement system makes clear that genuine learning requires a neuroceptively safe relational field: one in which the autonomic nervous system has assessed the environment as sufficiently safe to support the ventral vagal activation that allows for connection, curiosity, and integration. The banking model, whatever its intellectual content, cannot provide that field. A consultee who is treated as a recipient rather than a co-investigator learns something in their nervous system about the relational field of consultation — and that learning shapes what they will bring next time, and the time after that. The problem-posing stance is not just more effective pedagogically. It is more honest about what consultation actually is, and more accurate about what learning requires.

Freire’s framework carries a third element that the consultation literature has not yet fully named: the concept of generative themes. In Freire’s original pedagogy, the content of education does not come from a curriculum the teacher brings. It arises from the lived reality of the learner — the problems, contradictions, and questions that carry genuine weight in their world (Freire, 1970). For consultation, this means the consultee’s case is not raw material for the consultant’s expertise to organize. It is the generative content of the consultation — the thing that is actually alive in the consultee’s clinical life, carrying real confusion, real stakes, and real meaning.

When Component One of the DCF positions the consultee to lead the presentation without direction, it is not simply gathering information. It is honoring the principle that the consultation must arise from the consultee’s world, not from the consultant’s framework imposed upon it.

Freire’s most demanding implication for consultation is also his most frequently overlooked: in genuine dialogue, the consultant is also being educated. The consultee’s case teaches the consultant something. The generative theme is always already present in what the consultee brings. The consultant’s task is to receive it, not to replace it.  Their way of holding a clinical problem, the particular confusion they carry into the room, the places where their language becomes uncertain — these are not simply data points for developmental positioning. They are the means by which the consultation encounter changes the consultant’s own understanding. This is what distinguishes dialogue from differentiated delivery.

A consultant who enters with real curiosity — who follows the consultee’s case rather than organizing it toward a predetermined destination — does not emerge from that encounter unchanged. The permeability runs both directions. That is what genuine relationship does, in any domain. A consultant who cannot be changed by the consultee is still depositing, regardless of how skillfully they ask questions.

The permeability runs both directions. A consultant who cannot be changed by the consultee is still depositing — regardless of how skillfully they ask questions.

This bidirectionality does not dissolve the power asymmetry of the consultant role — and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. The consultant holds the rubric. They position. They decide what to scaffold and what to withhold. That structural authority is real, and Freire never argued it away. What he argued is that the direction of change is what distinguishes dialogue from domination. If only the consultee is transformed by the encounter — if the consultant exits every session exactly as they entered — the asymmetry has not been held honestly. It has been obscured by the appearance of curiosity. The consultant who remains genuinely open to being changed by the consultee is not abandoning their role. They are practicing the only form of that role that Freire would recognize as education rather than control.

1. Sinek’s Golden Circle and the Biology of Why

Simon Sinek’s Golden Circle (2009) offers a third convergent framework for understanding why problem-posing consultation works at the level it does — and why knowledge delivery, however sophisticated, so consistently fails to produce lasting development. Sinek observed that most organizations and communicators work from the outside in: they begin with what they do, move to how they do it, and rarely reach why they do it at all. The most influential leaders, movements, and organizations invert this sequence. They start with why — a core belief, a purpose that precedes strategy — and move outward from there. The Golden Circle maps this as three concentric rings: Why at the center, How in the middle, What on the outside. The direction of communication — inside out or outside in — determines not just what is heard, but where in the brain it is received, and whether it can move a person at all.

The biological grounding of this model is precise. The outer ring of the Golden Circle — the what — corresponds to the neocortex: the most recently evolved region of the brain, responsible for rational thought, analytical processing, and language. When consultants communicate from the outside in, they are addressing the neocortex directly. They present credentials, frameworks, rubrics, and interventions. The consultee can receive all of this cognitively. They can evaluate it, paraphrase it, agree with it. And they may leave the consultation unchanged. The middle two sections of the Golden Circle — How and Why — correspond to the limbic brain: the older, deeper structures governing trust, loyalty, gut feeling, and the behavioral decisions that actually determine what a person does next. The limbic brain is responsible for all human decision-making that matters. It is also the structure that has no capacity for language.

This is the neurological explanation for a phenomenon every clinician recognizes: the consultee who can articulate the intervention perfectly and still cannot execute it in the room. Cognitive understanding reached the neocortex. The felt conviction required to act did not reach the limbic system.  Sinek illustrates the inside-out principle through the Wright Brothers. Samuel Langley had every structural advantage: a War Department contract, substantial funding, an educated team, and the full backing of institutional legitimacy. He was working from the outside in — he had what he wanted to build and how he planned to build it, but his driving force was achievement and recognition, not a belief that animated the people around him. The Wright Brothers had almost nothing materially. What they had was a why — a genuine conviction, shared with the small team who worked alongside them, that powered flight would change what it means to be human. They communicated from the inside out. The people around them did not work for a paycheck or a contract. They worked because they believed what the Wright Brothers believed. Langley, when the Wright Brothers succeeded first, simply stopped. His goal had been to be first; the goal was external. Orville and Wilbur continued after every failure because the why was not contingent on outcome. The goal was purpose applied, not status achieved. This is not a story about resources. It is a story about where motivation lives in the brain — and whether the consultant, like the Wright Brothers, begins from a why that others can feel before they can name it.

People don’t do business with you because of what you do. They do business with you because of why you do it. The same is true of learning. The consultee who feels the consultant’s why — who senses genuine belief in their development before a single intervention is offered — is already in a different neurobiological state than one who does not.

The connection to Gendlin’s (1978) felt sense is direct. The felt sense is the body’s pre-verbal knowing — the implicit, somatic awareness that something is present before language has organized it into meaning. When the consultant begins from their why, communicating from the inside out, the consultee’s limbic system receives it before the neocortex can intercept and evaluate it. This is not metaphor. It is the sequence Sinek describes neurologically and Porges describes physiologically: the relational field is read at the level of the autonomic nervous system before it is processed at the level of cognition. The consultee must feel the consultant before they can learn from them. The felt sense is not a clinical nicety that follows from good technique. It is the primary channel through which genuine consultation enters and the limbic system opens. When a consultant works from their why — when their belief in the consultee’s development precedes and shapes everything else — the consultee’s nervous system registers it, the window of tolerance for learning opens, and the developmental encounter becomes possible. No amount of scaffolding skill applied from the outside in can replicate what begins from the inside out. 

1. Established Consultation Models

The DCF is grounded in and extends established clinical consultation literature. Bernard and Goodyear’s Discrimination Model (2019) identifies three roles the supervisor plays — teacher, counselor, and consultant — and three foci of supervision — intervention, conceptualization, and personalization. The DCF operates primarily within the consultant role and the conceptualization focus, while recognizing that developmental positioning requires attention to all three foci.

Falender and Shafranske’s competency-based supervision model (2004, 2017) provides the competency language used to anchor the rubric. Their articulation of competency domains — knowledge, skills, values, and meta-competence — informs the rubric’s developmental levels and ensures that positioning is grounded in observable clinical behavior rather than subjective impression.

Watkins’ scholarship on psychotherapy supervision (2012, 2017) contributes the developmental arc: his account of how clinicians move from imitation through consolidation to identity integration maps directly onto the rubric and validates the scaffolding logic. His central question — what makes supervision work? — is the question this framework takes seriously, and answers with structure rather than explanation.

III. The Three Components of the DCF

Component One: Consultee-Led Presentation as Developmental Assessment

The framework begins with a consultee-led case presentation. This is not a procedural nicety or a warm-up. It is the first and most information-rich component of the framework. How the consultee presents a case — what they lead with, where they get stuck, what language they use to describe client experience, how they formulate the clinical problem, and what they ask for — constitutes a real-time developmental assessment.

The consultant’s task during the presentation is active listening with a developmental ear. They are tracking not only the clinical content but the developmental signature: What does this consultee already know? Where does their conceptualization become uncertain? What is the proximal edge of their current competence? This listening stance — curious, non-directive, developmentally attuned — positions the consultant to locate the developmental frontier before any intervention is offered.

This component is deliberately consultee-led rather than consultant-structured. A consultant who immediately begins asking organizing questions or directing the presentation forfeits the developmental information that an unstructured presentation would have generated. I have learned to tolerate more silence in this phase than comes naturally. The discomfort of sitting with an uncertain or wandering presentation is exactly the space in which the most useful developmental data lives. 

Silence, patience, and genuine curiosity are the consultant’s primary tools in the first phase. The consultee who is allowed to present without direction tells you more about where they are than any structured intake could.

What happens in the consultee’s nervous system during Component One is not incidental to the developmental assessment. It is the condition that makes assessment possible at all. Porges’ (2011) polyvagal framework describes neuroception as the nervous system’s continuous, pre-conscious surveillance of the relational environment — reading cues of safety or threat in the other person’s face, voice, pace, and presence before any cognitive evaluation begins. When the consultant waits, tolerates uncertainty, and genuinely follows the consultee’s presentation without organizing it toward a predetermined destination, the consultee’s nervous system reads that before any content is exchanged. This is not interpretation. It is biological. The message that travels through the social engagement system — the ventral vagal circuit governing connection, curiosity, and openness to influence — is not “my consultant is using a technique.” It is something older and more immediate: I am being received, not assessed. The window of tolerance for learning opens at the level of felt sense before a single developmental observation is named.

Sinek’s (2009) inside-out principle operates here with particular force. A consultant who begins Component One from a genuine why — a real belief in this consultee’s capacity to develop — communicates that belief through their nervous system before they communicate anything verbally. The pace at which they settle into the session, the quality of their waiting, the degree to which they resist the pull to organize and direct — these are the limbic system’s data. The consultee does not think “my consultant believes in me” and then feel safe. They feel it first, in the body, as a pre-verbal sense that something trustworthy is present. Gendlin (1978) would call this the felt sense of the relational field — the body’s implicit knowing that precedes and exceeds language. It is the ground on which Component One either becomes a genuine developmental assessment or remains a sophisticated intake procedure.

Component Two: Rubric-Anchored Developmental Positioning

Following the consultee-led presentation, the consultant uses a rubric to position the consultee within a developmental progression. The rubric is organized around observable clinical competencies — case conceptualization, protocol selection, processing facilitation, assessment of completion, self-of-therapist awareness, and consultation-seeking behavior — and describes four developmental levels for each domain: Novice, Developing, Competent, and Advanced.

Rubric-anchored positioning serves two functions. First, it grounds the consultant’s developmental assessment in observable, describable behavior rather than global impressions. Second, it makes the consultant’s reasoning transparent and replicable — a feature of increasing importance as the field moves toward standardized consultation accountability.

 The positioning is provisional and collaborative. The consultant does not privately assign a developmental level and then deliver feedback from that assessment. They position tentatively and, where useful, share their positioning reasoning with the consultee as part of the collaborative learning process. The rubric is a shared clinical tool, not a hidden evaluative grid. I have found that naming the positioning out loud — ‘What I’m noticing is that your conceptualization is quite solid here, and the edge I’m seeing is in how you’re reading the processing channel’ — changes the texture of the consultation entirely. It invites the consultee into their own developmental picture rather than positioning them as the subject of an evaluation.

The rubric is a shared clinical tool, not a hidden evaluative grid. Positioning named out loud becomes an invitation. Positioning held privately becomes a power differential.

The neurobiological stakes of this distinction are not abstract. Hidden assessment — the consultant who privately positions and then delivers feedback from an undisclosed evaluative grid — activates the consultee’s threat-detection system. The limbic brain, scanning continuously for cues of safety or danger in the relational field, registers the asymmetry of not knowing how one is being seen. Uncertainty about evaluation is itself a neuroceptive threat signal. The dorsal vagal response — withdrawal, shutdown, the narrowing of the window of tolerance — does not require a dramatic rupture to be triggered. A relational field in which assessment is opaque is sufficient. The consultee who does not know how they are being positioned cannot fully engage with the developmental encounter. A portion of their nervous system’s resources is always allocated to surveillance, always scanning for the verdict that has not yet been named.

I know this from the other side of the table. I have sat in consultation rooms where I could feel the assessment happening before anything was named — where some part of me was tracking the consultant’s face, their pauses, the quality of their listening, trying to read the verdict while still presenting the case. You cannot fully think in that state. You cannot access your best clinical knowing when a portion of your nervous system is running surveillance. The developmental encounter closes down precisely when it most needs to be open.

When the consultant names their positioning out loud — provisionally, collaboratively, as a shared lens rather than a private conclusion — they make a neuroceptive offer. The consultee’s social engagement system can come online. The threat of hidden evaluation is reduced not because the power differential disappears, but because the consultant has chosen transparency over authority. This is Sinek’s why made visible in practice: the consultant who shares their reasoning is communicating, through action, that their purpose is the consultee’s development — not the performance of expertise. That communication reaches the limbic brain before the neocortex evaluates whether the positioning is accurate. Trust is established at the level of felt sense, before and beneath the level of cognitive agreement.

 Component Three: Scaffolded Intervention to the Next Level Only

The third component is the most precisely targeted: the consultant intervenes to scaffold the consultee toward the next developmental level, and only the next level. This is the direct application of Vygotsky’s developmental logic to consultation practice. If the consultee is Developing in a particular competency domain, the consultant’s intervention is calibrated toward Competent-level functioning — not Advanced, not expert. One step.

This constraint is not a limitation of ambition. It is a function of how learning works. Development happens in a zone, not a leap. Scaffolded intervention pitched above that proximal space — however sophisticated or well-intended — lands outside the learner’s current capacity to integrate. Clinicians leave that consultation activated but not advanced.

Scaffolded intervention takes many forms: a well-placed question that opens a new conceptual door, a brief didactic explanation of a mechanism the consultee is approaching intuitively, a reframe of the clinical problem that allows the consultee to see the case differently. The common feature is that the intervention meets the consultee at their current developmental edge and extends it — not by adding information, but by opening the next level of understanding.

The hardest part of this component, in my experience, is the restraint it requires. There are almost always more things worth saying than should be said. Every consultation contains multiple developmental edges. The discipline of the framework is to select one, intervene precisely there, and stop. Not because the other edges don’t matter — but because one well-placed scaffold produces more growth than five observations delivered in sequence.

One well-placed scaffold produces more growth than five observations delivered in sequence. The consultant who says less, precisely, is practicing the framework. The consultant who says everything they know is practicing expertise — and leaving the consultee’s developmental zone untouched.

The restraint that Component Three requires is not only a pedagogical discipline. It is a neurobiological act with a specific relational meaning that the consultee’s limbic system receives before their neocortex can interpret it. When the consultant intervenes at one developmental edge and then stops — when they resist the pull to offer the five other things worth saying — they send a signal that no amount of verbal reassurance can substitute for: I believe in your capacity to carry this. I am not filling the space because I trust you to fill it. That restraint is received through the social engagement system as evidence of confidence in the consultee’s development — not as withholding, not as incompleteness, but as a regulated, intentional act that communicates belief in the other.

This is where Porges and Sinek converge most precisely. Porges (2011) describes co-regulation as the process by which one person’s regulated autonomic nervous system creates the conditions within which another’s can settle. The consultant who can sit with the productive discomfort of having said one thing well — who does not discharge their own activation by continuing to talk — is co-regulating the consultee’s nervous system through the quality of their presence.

 The consultee’s window of tolerance for integration widens not because of what the consultant said, but because of the steadiness of the silence that follows it. And Sinek’s (2009) inside-out principle names what makes that steadiness possible: the consultant who knows their why — who is genuinely here for the consultee’s development and not for the performance of their own expertise — does not need to fill the space. Their nervous system is already settled around a purpose that does not require external validation. That settledness is itself the intervention.

Attunement is not a technique applied across the three components. It is the ground condition beneath them — the neurobiological and relational substrate without which the components are procedure rather than practice. The consultant who arrives already regulated, already oriented to their why, already genuinely curious about this consultee’s world, does not perform attunement. They inhabit it. And the consultee’s nervous system knows the difference before either of them has spoken a word.

1. Looking Ahead in This Series

The DCF is the first in a series of clinical frameworks and theoretical explorations being developed and published through The Rooted Practice at Rewired360. The questions that led to this framework — about developmental structure, relational safety, and what actually produces growth in clinical consultation — open into a broader set of inquiries about how trauma and grief clinicians learn, develop, and sustain themselves across a career.

The series will explore adjacent and intersecting theoretical terrain: how grief theory and adaptive processing intersect in ways the current literature has not yet fully mapped, how pedagogical theory from outside the clinical tradition illuminates the design of continuing education for trauma practitioners, and how the neurobiological and relational dimensions of clinical development can be integrated into consultation and supervision practice in ways that are grounded, specific, and practically useful.

Each piece in this series is offered as a theoretically grounded clinical contribution — open to engagement, critique, and extension by the practitioners working in these areas. The frameworks that serve the field best are the ones built in dialogue with the clinicians who test them in actual practice. Readers are invited into that dialogue. Future posts in The Rooted Practice series can be found at rewired360.com

 How to Cite This Work

Couch, K. (2026, February). Introducing the Developmental Consultation Framework (DCF): A Vygotskian model for rubric-anchored, scaffolded clinical consultation. The Rooted Practice. Rewired360. https://rewired360.com

 References

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2019). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (6th ed.). Pearson.

Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16(3), 252–260.

Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2004). Clinical supervision: A competency-based approach. American Psychological Association.

Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2017). Competency-based clinical supervision: A framework for supervision practice. In C. A. Falender, E. P. Shafranske, & C. J. Falicov (Eds.), Multiculturalism and diversity in clinical supervision (pp. 23–47). American Psychological Association.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder.

Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2012). Supervision in the helping professions (4th ed.). Open University Press.

Porges, S. W. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. W. W. Norton.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. Portfolio/Penguin.

Stoltenberg, C. D., & McNeill, B. W. (2010). IDM supervision: An integrative developmental model for supervising counselors and therapists (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2012). Development of the psychotherapy supervisor: Concepts, assumptions, and hypotheses of the supervisor complexity model. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 66(2), 103–133.

Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2014). The supervisory alliance as quintessential integrative variable. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 44(3), 151–161.

Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2017). Psychotherapy supervision: How supervision works remains the profound question. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 27(2), 135–145.

© 2026 Copyright 2026 Rewired360™ — Kathy Couch, LCSW, FT All Rights Reserved. First Published Feb 26, 2026 at Rewired360.

Citation: Couch, K. (2026, February). Introducing the Developmental Consultation Framework (DCF): A Vygotskian model for rubric-anchored, scaffolded clinical consultation. The Rooted Practice. Rewired360. https://rewired360.com  All materials are the intellectual property of Rewired360 and are provided for authorized use only. Any reproduction, distribution, or disclosure without prior written permission is strictly prohibited. |