Journals / Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 4

Assessment of the therapeutic alliance: reliability and validity of the working alliance inventory

Terapötik ittifakın değerlendirilmesi: Terapötik ittifak ölçeği?nin güvenilirlik ve geçerlik çalışması

Pages
398–408
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Conclusion: As preliminary evidence, our findings suggest that the validity and reliability of the Turkish WAI were at acceptable levels for clinical and research settings.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Recent trends in psychotherapy research indicate a growing interest on the conceptualization and assessment of the therapeutic alliance.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Accordingly, this study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of the Turkish Working Alliance Inventory (WAI) (Horvath and Greenberg, 1989) Therapist and Client Forms.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: As preliminary evidence, our findings suggest that the validity and reliability of the Turkish WAI were at acceptable levels for clinical and research settings.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Zihinsel bozukluklar · Faktör analizi · istatistiksel

Abstract

Objective: Recent trends in psychotherapy research indicate a growing interest on the conceptualization and assessment of the therapeutic alliance. Accordingly, this study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of the Turkish Working Alliance Inventory (WAI) (Horvath and Greenberg, 1989) Therapist and Client Forms. Method: In the first phase of the study, the scale was presented to 5 judges, representing psychoanalytic, gestalt, and cognitive behavioral approaches, who then placed the subscale's items within the intended theoretical construct with a high degree of consensus. In the second phase, Therapists (N=21), from different theoretical traditions, filled out the WAI (Therapist Form) based on their sessions with their three patients (N=63). Patients also completed the WAI (Client Form). These evaluations by therapists and patients have been carried out for the third or following sessions. Results: The internal validity of the scale was ά = .96 for the Therapist Form and ά = .90 for the Client Form. Factors analysis, conducted only for the Client Form, revealed that 3 factors were loaded in congruence with the original WAI. Considering the limited number of therapists participated in the study, factor analysis could not be conducted for the Therapist Form. Conclusion: As preliminary evidence, our findings suggest that the validity and reliability of the Turkish WAI were at acceptable levels for clinical and research settings.

Özet

Amaç: Yeni dönem psikoterapi araştırmalarındaki yönelimler doğrultusunda, terapötik ittifak olgusunun değerlendirilmesine ilişkin çalışmalarda bir artış gözlenmeye başlanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, Horvath ve Greenberg (1989) tarafından geliştirilmiş olan Terapötik İttifak Ölçeği?nin (TİÖ) güvenilirlik ve geçerliğinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: İlk aşamada, ölçek Psikanalitik, Geştalt ve Bilişsel Davranışçı yaklaşımlar temelinde farklı kuramsal ardalana sahip 5 yargıcının değerlendirmesine sunulmuş ve maddelerin özgün biçimine uygun olarak yüksek bir yüzdeyle yerleştirildiği gözlenmiştir. Çalışmanın ikinci bölümünde, psikoterapi alanında çalışan ve yine farklı kuramsal ardalana sahip 21 terapist aracılığıyla üçüncü oturum veya izleyen oturumların ardından, hem terapistler hem de hastalar açısından terapötik ittifak düzeyleri değerlendirilmiştir Bulgular: Ölçeğin Terapist Formu?nun iç tutarlılığı 0.96, Hasta Formu?nun 0.90 ise olduğu görülmüştür. Ölçeğin Hasta Formu için yapılan faktör analizi sonucunda, katılımcı sayısının azlığına karşın özgün 3 faktörlü yapının genelde korunduğu gözlenmiştir. Terapist katılımcı sayısının, hasta örneklemine göre üçte bir oranında sınırlı düzeyde kalması nedeniyle, Terapist Formu için faktör analitik çalışma yürütülmemiştir. Sonuç: Elde edilen sonuçlar, TİÖ?nin, Türkiye?de yürütülen klinik uygulama ve araştırma etkinliklerinde kullanılabilirliği açısından, kabul edilebilir düzeylerde geçerli ve güvenilir bir değerlendirme aracı olduğu yönünde yorumlanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

PEKAK, G. S., IŞIKLI, S. (2008). Assessment of the therapeutic alliance: reliability and validity of the working alliance inventory. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 4, 398–408. https://ajindex.com/articles/92011

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Anrdrusyna T, Tang T, DeRubeis R ve ark. (2001) The factor structure of the working alliance inventory in cognitive behavioral therapy. J Psychother Pract & Res, 10: 173-178.
  2. Bordin E (1979) The generalizability of the concept of the working alliance. Psychother, 16: 252-260.
  3. Castonguay L, Beutler L (2006) Principles of therapeutic change: a task force on participants, relationships, and techniques factors. J Clin Psychol, 62: 631?638. Castonguay L, Goldfried MR, Wiser S ve ark. (1996) Predicting the effect of cognitive therapy for depresion: a study of unique and common factors. J Consult & Clin Psychol, 64: 497-504.
  4. Crits-Christoph P, Connolly M (1999) Alliance and technique in short-term dynamic therapy. Clin Psychol Rev, 19: 687-704.
  5. Fenton L, Cecero J, Nich C ve ark. (2001) Perspective is everything: the predictive validity of six working alliance instruments. J Psychother Pract & Res, 10: 262-268.
  6. Fine R (1979) A History of Psychoanalysis. New York: Columbia University Press.
  7. Gaston L (1990) The concept of the alliance and its role in pschotherapy: theoretical and emprical cosiderations. Psychother, 27: 143-153.
  8. Gaston L, Thompson L, Gallagher D ve ark. (1998) Alliance technique, and their interactions in predicting outcome of behavioral, cognitive, and brief dynamic therapy. Psychother Res, 8: 190-209.
  9. Greenson R, Wexler M (1969) The non-transference relationship in the psychoanalytic situation. Int J Psychoanal, 50: 27-39.
  10. Hanson WE, Curry KT, Bandalos DL ve ark. (2002) Reliability generalization of working alliance inventory scale scores. EPM, 62: 659-673.
  11. Hartley D (1985) Research on the therapeutic alliance in psychotherapy. American Psychiatric Association (Ed.) Psychiatric Update (Vol. 4 pp.532-549).
  12. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Hatcher R, Barends A (1996) Patients view of the alliance in psychotherapy: exploratory factor analysis of three alliance measures. J Consult & Clin Psychol, 64: 1326-1336.
  13. Hatcher R, Barends A, Hansel G ve ark. (1995) Patients? and therapists? shared and unique views of the therapeutic alliance: An investigation using confirmatory factor analysis in a nested design. J Consult & Clin Psychol, 63: 636-643.
  14. Horvath A, Greenberg L (1989) Development and validation of the working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. J Counsel Psychol, 38: 139-149.
  15. Horvath A, Symonds B (1991) Relation between working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. J Counsel Psychol, 38: 139-14