What Is the Difference Between IFS, Schema, and Resource Therapy?

Claudia Wolf
May 30
3 min read

As a professional searching for CPD and trainings to up-skill with, it can be overwhelming to decide on which model is best for you. As a client it can be even more overwhelming to choose a therapist and therapy style that fits!

I recommend finding a trainer that resonates with you (just like good fit of therapist is important in therapy) as well as exploring the modality in depth. What is important to you? Identity affirming? Neuro-affirming? Language? Lots of flexibility and room for ecclectism... or heavily manualised protocols with very clear direction?

I've even been known to hang out in Facebook groups of therapists in a given modality to see if it passes the 'vibe check'!!

As an Advanced Parts Work trainer (Resource Therapy), I am often asked the difference between Resource Therapy and two of the better known modalities, IFS and Schema therapy. Whilst Schema therapy is more parts adjacent with its modes work, IFS and Resource Therapy are very similar- I call them Parts Work cousins!

Here is an informal summary:

Resource Therapy

Clearly describes parts that carry unresolved experiences, and has structured approaches to treat any presenting problem or issue
It is unique in that it works directly with each part that needs help, ensuring the part feels validated, heard, and seen. Rather than talking ‘about the part’, Resource Therapy can quickly get to the true root of the issue.
Never seeks to ‘get rid of’ parts – instead releases their pain and upgrades their ‘job description’ in your life. This also encourages self-compassion.
There are techniques to build up the parts of you that you love- tapping into them when you need them in life (not just focusing on the ‘negative’ parts you want to change). This makes it a powerful tool for any therapy session, even when you’re not doing ‘trauma processing’
Pairs really well with EMDR therapy, and there are formal approaches for couples counselling too.
Not as well known, and so fewer therapists offer it (it was developed in Australia!)
Not recognised by Medicare as a focussed psychological strategy, so therapy sessions are not eligible for Medicare rebates. I would recommend finding a therapist who uses it alongside EMDR therapy, or another Medicare-recognised modality.

Internal Family Systems (IFS)

Talks about “exiles, managers, and firefighters” and the idea of the “Self” as a calm, compassionate centre. Parts might be ‘burdened’ by life experiences.
Parts are not eliminated or gotten rid of – all parts are valuable and the aim to return them to a healthier state and let the ‘Self’ emerge.
Widely known and very popular worldwide. Many more therapists offer this in Australia.
Has been recently updated to include a formal spiritual component. It can be used in a way that is gentle, affirming, and encourage deep self-compassion.
Can feel abstract for some people, and doesn’t always provide a clear step-by-step process. Language can be confusing to keep track of.
Not recognised by Medicare for use under a Mental Health Treatment Plan from your GP

Schema Therapy

Combines cognitive behavioural aspects of therapy with attachment and parts work.
Uses questionnaires and detailed categories to map core belief schemas, and “modes” i.e. patterns of responses
Widely recommended for trauma responses and so called ‘personality disorders’. Can be used in individual therapy or with couples, and it is relatively easy to find a therapist offering Schema Therapy.
Offers clients lots of structure and evidence, especially for long-term personality and relationship difficulties.
In my own experience of Schema work as a neurodivergent person, the rigidity and structure was challenging. The questionnaires did not allow for context and nuance of the neurodivergent lived experience and I didn’t feel that it captured my needs. For others, this may be the opposite.
It can feel a little more ‘judgey’ of parts because of the clinical nature of categorisation, compared to the IFS and Resource Therapy.
Also not recognised by Medicare when used as a standalone intervention.