Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2020 Sep;88(9):859-869. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000598. Epub 2020 Jul 16.
Ruptures and repairs in alliance and their association with treatment outcome have been studied widely. Many of these studies have used indirect methods, focused on decreases in alliance across sessions while measuring alliance at postsession. However, this approach does not establish whether observed decreases occur within (as insinuated by most theories) or between sessions. In the current study, we examined decreases of alliance measured both pre- and postsession in 3 clinical trials and explored the phenomenology and interpretation of these decreases. Additionally, we investigated the effects of rupture magnitude and the interpretation of repairs on treatment outcome, examining whether the "repairs benefit" or the "unrepaired ruptures damage" theories were supported by the data.
Presession and postsession therapeutic alliance and outcome measures were examined from patients who participated in 1 of 3 studies: cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for social anxiety disorder (N = 29), CBT for panic disorder (N = 31), or short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for depression (N = 44). Patterns of change in alliance are described. Ruptures and repairs are examined according to several criteria and are used to predict outcome using longitudinal multilevel modeling.
In all samples, alliance systematically decreased between sessions and increased within them. Decreases in alliance as measured by traditional postsession to postsession were unreliable predictors of within-session decreases in alliance and of outcomes.
Decreases in alliance across sessions are not valid measures of ruptures as defined by most theories. Instead, we suggest that they are indicative of an ebb-and-flow model for the development of alliance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
联盟的破裂和修复及其与治疗结果的关系已经得到了广泛的研究。许多这些研究都使用了间接方法,专注于在会议期间联盟的减少,同时在会议后测量联盟。然而,这种方法并不能确定观察到的减少是在会议期间内(如大多数理论所暗示的)还是在会议之间发生的。在当前的研究中,我们在 3 项临床试验中同时检查了会前和会后测量的联盟的减少,并探讨了这些减少的现象学和解释。此外,我们还研究了破裂幅度和修复的解释对治疗结果的影响,检验了“修复受益”或“未修复破裂损害”理论是否得到了数据的支持。
从参加了 3 项研究之一的患者中检查了会前和会后的治疗联盟和结果测量:认知行为治疗(CBT)治疗社交焦虑障碍(N=29)、CBT 治疗惊恐障碍(N=31)或短期心理动力学心理治疗治疗抑郁症(N=44)。描述了联盟变化的模式。根据几个标准检查了破裂和修复,并使用纵向多层建模来预测结果。
在所有样本中,联盟在会议之间系统地减少,在会议内增加。传统的会后到会后的联盟减少是联盟在会议内减少和结果的不可靠预测因素。
跨会议的联盟减少不是大多数理论所定义的破裂的有效衡量标准。相反,我们建议它们是联盟发展的潮起潮落模型的指示。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2020 APA,保留所有权利)。