a Department of Humanistic Studies , "Carlo Bo" University of Urbino , Urbino , Italy.
b Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology , Sapienza University of Rome , Rome , Italy.
Psychother Res. 2019 Apr;29(3):279-292. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2017.1414331. Epub 2017 Dec 22.
This study presents the revised version of the Collaborative Interactions Scale (CIS) [Colli, A., & Lingiardi, V. (2009). The Collaborative Interactions Scale: A new transcript-based method for the assessment of therapeutic alliance ruptures and resolutions in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 19(6), 718-734.], an observer-rated measure for the assessment of therapeutic-alliance ruptures and resolutions. Intensive use of the previous scale resulted in three criticisms: (i) excessive time required to perform evaluations, (ii) the low occurrence of some items, and (iii) the scale's low capacity to capture some patient-therapist interactions in fine detail. In this study, we aimed to describe the scale revision process and evaluate interrater reliability and scale validity by comparing sessions of patients with and without personality disorders (PDs).
Three raters conducted a blind evaluation of a sample of 60 sessions (180 segments; 3607 narrative units) with 30 patients (15 had a PD diagnosis and 15 had a DSM-5 clinical syndrome diagnosis without a PD).
Interrater reliability results ranged from acceptable to excellent and were comparable to those of the former version. Patients with PDs showed a greater number of alliance ruptures and a smaller number of collaborative processes than patients without PDs. Moreover, therapists presented more negative interventions with the PD sample than with the non-PD sample.
The results indicate that the revised CIS is a reliable rating system that is useful for both empirical research and clinical assessments. Clinical or methodological significance of this article: The CIS-R is a reliable rating system that is suitable for both empirical research and clinical assessment. It is useful for recognizing rupture and resolution processes, both in clinical everyday practice and in psychotherapists' training. Application of the CIS-R promotes clinical reflection on the therapeutic action used to manage ruptures in a session.
本研究呈现了协作互动量表(CIS)的修订版[Colli, A., & Lingiardi, V. (2009). The Collaborative Interactions Scale: A new transcript-based method for the assessment of therapeutic alliance ruptures and resolutions in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 19(6), 718-734.],这是一种评估心理治疗中治疗联盟破裂和解决的基于观察的量表。先前量表的广泛使用导致了三个批评:(i)评估所需的时间过长,(ii)一些项目的发生率低,以及(iii)该量表无法详细捕捉一些医患互动。在这项研究中,我们旨在描述量表修订过程,并通过比较人格障碍(PD)患者和非人格障碍患者的治疗过程来评估评分者间信度和量表效度。
三位评分者对 30 名患者(15 名被诊断为 PD,15 名符合 DSM-5 临床综合征诊断但无 PD)的 60 次治疗过程(180 个片段;3607 个叙述单元)进行了盲评。
评分者间信度结果从可接受到极好,与前一版本相当。与非 PD 患者相比,PD 患者的联盟破裂次数更多,协作过程次数更少。此外,与非 PD 患者相比,PD 患者样本中的治疗师呈现出更多的消极干预。
结果表明,修订后的 CIS 是一种可靠的评分系统,既适用于实证研究,也适用于临床评估。它有助于识别破裂和解决过程,无论是在临床日常实践中还是在心理治疗师的培训中。CIS-R 的应用有助于促进对治疗师在治疗过程中管理破裂时所使用的治疗行动的临床反思。