Psychother Res. 2010 Sep;20(5):599-610. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2010.495957.
The authors developed two versions of a therapeutic presence measure, based on an earlier model of presence (Geller & Greenberg, 2002)-Therapeutic Presence Inventory-therapist (TPI-T) and client (TPI-C) versions-to measure in-session therapeutic presence. They explored their reliability and validity in two studies. In the first, items generated from the previously established model were subjected to analyses and expert ratings. In the second study, therapists and clients rated therapists' presence postsession. Therapists also completed the Relationship Inventory, and clients assessed two additional factors: session outcome, using the Client Task Specific Measure-Revised, and therapeutic alliance, using the Working Alliance Inventory. Findings revealed that both versions of the TPI had good reliability and construct validity. However, TPI-T had low predictive validity and the TPI-C showed good predictive validity. In particular, clients reported positive therapeutic alliance and change following sessions when they felt their therapist was present with them.
作者基于早期的存在模式（Geller & Greenberg，2002）——治疗性存在量表（Therapeutic Presence Inventory-therapist，TPI-T 和 client，TPI-C）——开发了两种治疗性存在测量版本，以衡量治疗中的治疗性存在。他们在两项研究中探索了其可靠性和有效性。在第一项研究中，从先前建立的模型中生成的项目进行了分析和专家评估。在第二项研究中，治疗师和客户在治疗后对治疗师的存在进行了评估。治疗师还完成了关系量表，客户评估了另外两个因素：使用修订后的客户特定任务量表评估的会话结果，以及使用工作联盟量表评估的治疗联盟。研究结果表明，TPI 的两个版本都具有良好的可靠性和结构有效性。然而，TPI-T 的预测效度较低，而 TPI-C 的预测效度较高。特别是，当客户感到治疗师与他们在一起时，他们报告说在治疗后有积极的治疗联盟和变化。
