SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Klinik Psikoloji Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

Reliability and validity study of the Turkish form of the Therapist Presence Inventory

Terapötik Mevcudiyet Envanteri’nin Türkçe uyarlamasının geçerlik ve güvenilirlik çalışması

İ. Volkan Gülüm(TOBB EKONOMİ VE TEKNOLOJİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, FEN-EDEBİYAT FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-4291-038X
İlknur Dilekler Aldemir(TOBB EKONOMİ VE TEKNOLOJİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, FEN-EDEBİYAT FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-9231-8141
Gözde İkizer(TOBB EKONOMİ VE TEKNOLOJİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, FEN-EDEBİYAT FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-3567-5991
Ayşe Nuray Karancı(TOBB EKONOMİ VE TEKNOLOJİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, FEN-EDEBİYAT FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-1632-3851
Pages
27–40
Publication Date
2025-04-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Considering the internal consistency values of the inventory and its relationship with other scales and subscales, it was evaluated as a valid and reliable tool that can be used in the field of psychotherapy research and practice.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Within the scope of this study, the client and therapist forms of the Therapist Presence Inventory were adapted into Turkish.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 245 sessions' data from 35 clients and 11 therapists were collected.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Considering the internal consistency values of the inventory and its relationship with other scales and subscales, it was evaluated as a valid and reliable tool that can be used in the field of psychotherapy research and practice.
🔬Design:Klinik Araştırma
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:terapist mevcudiyeti · terapötik ittifak · psikoterapi araştırmaları

Abstract

Within the scope of this study, the client and therapist forms of the Therapist Presence Inventory were adapted into Turkish. For this purpose, data were collected and analyzed from clients and therapists after the sessions conducted by therapist candidates who continued their psychotherapy training. Demographic information form, client and therapist forms of the Therapist Presence Inventory, and client and therapist forms of the Working Alliance Inventory - Short Form were used. A total of 245 sessions' data from 35 clients and 11 therapists were collected. Exploratory factor analysis, internal consistency analysis, correlation, and regression analyses were conducted to examine the psychometric properties of the inventory. As a result of the analyses, it was decided that removing one item from the client form was appropriate. The internal consistency value of the two-item client form of the Therapist Presence Inventory was .85. The internal consistency value of the twenty-one-item therapist form was .93. Findings support the original single factor structure. Considering the internal consistency values of the inventory and its relationship with other scales and subscales, it was evaluated as a valid and reliable tool that can be used in the field of psychotherapy research and practice.

Özet

Bu çalışma kapsamında Terapötik Mevcudiyet Envanteri’nin danışan ve terapist formlarının Türkçe uyarlaması yapılmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda psikoterapi eğitimine devam eden terapist adaylarının yürüttükleri seanslar sonrasında hem danışanlardan hem de terapistlerden veri toplanmış ve analiz edilmiştir. Demografik bilgi formu, Terapötik Mevcudiyeti Envanteri danışan ve terapist formları ve Terapötik İttifak Ölçeği- Kısa Formunun danışan ve terapist formları kullanılmıştır. Otuz beş danışan ve 11 terapiste ait toplam 245 seanstan veri toplanmış, aracın psikometrik özelliklerini incelemek için açımlayıcı faktör analizi, iç tutarlılık analizi, korelasyon ve regresyon analizleri yapılmıştır. Analizler sonucunda danışan formundan bir maddenin silinmesinin uygun olduğuna karar verilmiştir. Terapötik Mevcudiyet Envanteri’nin iki maddelik danışan formunun iç tutarlılık değeri .85, yirmi bir maddelik terapist formunun iç tutarlılık değeri ise .93 olarak bulunmuştur. Bulgular, ölçeğin orijinal tek boyutlu yapısını destekler niteliktedir. Envanterin iç tutarlılık değerleri ve diğer ölçek ve alt ölçeklerle olan ilişkisi göz önüne alındığında, psikoterapi araştırmaları ve uygulamaları alanında kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğu değerlendirilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gülüm, İ. V., Aldemir, İ. D., İkizer, G., Karancı, A. N. (2025). Reliability and validity study of the Turkish form of the Therapist Presence Inventory. Klinik Psikoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.57127/kpd.26024438.1470442

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (38)

  1. Aafjes-Van Doorn, K., Békés, V., Luo, X. ve Hopwood, C. J. (2023). Therapists’ perception of the working alliance, real relationship and therapeutic presence in in-person therapy versus tele-therapy. Psychotherapy Research, 34(5), 574–588.
  2. Abbasi Sooreshjani, M., Nikgoo, R. ve Farahani, H. (2023). The indirect effect of compassion for others in the relationship between mindfulness and therapeutic presence. Clinical Psychologist, 27(3), 343–351.
  3. Audet, C. T. ve Everall, R. D. (2010). Therapist self-disclosure and the therapeutic relationship: A phenomenological study from the client perspective. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 38(3), 327–342.
  4. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A Note on the Multiplying Factors for Various χ2 Approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 16(2), 296–298.
  5. Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16(3), 252-260.
  6. Campbell Bernards, J. (2017). Physiological attunement and ınfluence in couples therapy: examining the roots of therapeutic presence. [Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University]. BYU Scholars Archive. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/6395
  7. Castonguay, L. G., Youn, S. J., Xiao, H. ve McAleavey, A. A. (2018). The therapeutic relationship: A warm, important, and potentially mutative factor in cognitive-behavioral therapy. O. Tishby ve H. Wiseman (Ed.) içinde, Developing the therapeutic relationship: Integrating case studies, research, and practice (pp. 157–179). American Psychological Association.
  8. Colosimo, K. A. ve Pos, A. E. (2015). A rational model of expressed therapeutic presence. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 25(2), 100–114.
  9. Cooper, M. (2005). Therapists’ experiences of relational depth: A qualitative interview study. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 5(2), 87–95.
  10. Dunn, R., Callahan, J. L., Swift, J. K. ve Ivanovic, M. (2013). Effects of pre-session centering for therapists on session presence and effectiveness. Psychotherapy Research, 23(1), 78–85.
  11. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C. ve Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.
  12. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4. baskı). SAGE Publications.
  13. Geller, S. (2020). Cultivating online therapeutic presence: strengthening therapeutic relationships in teletherapy sessions, Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 34(3-4), 687-703.
  14. Geller, S. M. (2013). Therapeutic presence as a foundation for relational depth. Knox, R., Murphy, D., Wiggins, S. ve Cooper, M. (Eds.), Relational depth: New perspectives and developments, (s. 175-184) içinde. Palgrav.
  15. Geller, S. M. ve Greenberg, L. S. (2002). Therapeutic presence: Therapists’ experience of presence in the psychotherapeutic encounter. Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies, 1(1-2), 71-86.
  16. Geller, S. M. ve Porges, S. W. (2014). Therapeutic presence: Neurophysiological mechanisms mediating feeling safe in therapeutic relationships. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 24(3), 178–192.
  17. Geller, S. M., & Greenberg, L. S. (2012). Therapeutic Presence: A Mindful Approach to Effective Therapy. Washington, DC: APA Publications.
  18. Geller, S. M., Greenberg, L. S. ve Watson, J. C. (2010). Therapist and client perceptions of therapeutic presence: The development of a measure. Psychotherapy Research, 20(5), 599-610.
  19. George, D. ve Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10. baskı). Pearson.
  20. Grad, R. I. (2021). Therapeutic alliance and childhood interpersonal trauma: The role of attachment, cultural humility, and therapeutic presence. Journal of Counseling & Development, 100(3), 296–307.
  21. Gülüm, İ. V., Uluç, S. ve Soygüt, G. (2018). Terapötik İttifak Ölçeği-Kısa formun psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi, Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi. 29(1) 47-53.
  22. Hatcher R. L. ve Gillaspy J. A. (2006). Development and validation of a revised short version of the working alliance inventory. Psychotherapy Research, 16(1), 12-25.
  23. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. ve Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7. baskı). Pearson.
  24. Horvath A. O. ve Greenberg L. S. (1989). Development and validation of the working alliance inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(2), 223-233.
  25. Horvath, A. O., Del Re, A. C., Flückiger, C. ve Symonds, D. (2011). Alliance in individual psychotherapy, Psychotherapy, 48(1), 9-16.
  26. Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35(4), 401–415.
  27. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
  28. Krause, M. (2024). Lessons from ten years of psychotherapy process research. Psychotherapy Research, 34(3), 261-275.
  29. Lambert, M. J. (2013). The efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy. M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (6. baskı, s. 169–218) içinde. Wiley.
  30. Malet, P., Bioy, A. ve Santarpia, A. (2022). Clinical perspectives on the notion of presence. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
  31. Rathenau, S., Sousa, D., Vaz, A. ve Geller, S. (2022). The effect of attitudes toward online therapy and the difficulties perceived in online therapeutic presence. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 32(1), 19–33.
  32. R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project. org
  33. Swift, J. ve Callahan, J. (2009). Early psychotherapy processes: An examination of client and trainee clinician perspective convergence. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy: An International Journal of Theory & Practice, 16(3), 228-236.
  34. The jamovi project (2024). jamovi (Version 2.5) [Computer Software]. https://www.jamovi.org
  35. Tracey, T. J. ve Kokotovic, A. M. (1989). Factor structure of the working alliance inventory. Psychological Assessment, 1(3), 207-210.
  36. Tryon, G. S., Blackwell, S. C. ve Hammel, E. F. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of client-therapist perspectives of the working alliance. Psychotherapy Research, 17(6), 629–642.
  37. West, S. G., Finch, J. F. ve Curran, P. J. (1996). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: problems and remedies. R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications (s. 56-75) içinde. Sage.
  38. Worthington, R. L. ve Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838.