Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education, University of Maryland.
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland.
J Couns Psychol. 2024 Jan;71(1):63-76. doi: 10.1037/cou0000715. Epub 2023 Nov 13.
Using longitudinal client and therapist working alliance ratings, previous research examined how alliance: average value, linear growth, variability, stability (autocorrelation), and partner responsiveness were associated with client outcome. However, no research simultaneously examined all of these dimensions. Omitting important variables in analyses could lead to overestimation of related effects. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine these effects simultaneously. Therapists ( = 45) and clients ( = 236) rated alliance after every session ( = 10,720) and clients completed a measure of psychological distress after every eighth session. We used dynamic structure equation modeling to model longitudinal ratings using the longitudinal actor-partner interaction and location-scale models. Across sessions, there were significant linear growth and significant variability in client and therapist alliance ratings. The variability indicates multiple "V" patterns, which have been associated with alliance ruptures. Both actor effects were significant, showing session-to-session stability for client and therapist alliance. In addition, client-partner effect was significant, indicating higher-than-usual client alliance in a session predicting an increase in therapist alliance in the subsequent session. Growth in neither client-rated nor therapist-rated working alliances was significantly associated with client improvement. Lower variabilities (fewer fluctuations) in both client- and therapist-rated working alliances were associated with better outcomes. Higher therapist-actor and partner effects were associated with client improvement, but client-actor and partner effects were not associated with client improvement. Average working alliances were not associated with client improvement. Implications for practice and research were discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
使用纵向的客户和治疗师工作联盟评级,先前的研究检验了联盟如何:平均值、线性增长、可变性、稳定性(自相关)和合作伙伴响应性与客户结果相关。然而,没有研究同时检查所有这些维度。在分析中省略重要变量可能会导致相关效应的高估。因此,本研究的目的是同时检查这些效应。治疗师(=45)和客户(=236)在每次治疗后对联盟进行评级(=10720),客户在每八次治疗后完成一次心理困扰测量。我们使用动态结构方程模型,使用纵向演员-伙伴相互作用和位置-规模模型对纵向评分进行建模。在各次治疗中,客户和治疗师的联盟评分都有显著的线性增长和显著的可变性。这种可变性表明存在多种“V”模式,这些模式与联盟破裂有关。两个演员效应都是显著的,表明客户和治疗师联盟在每次治疗中有稳定的表现。此外,客户-伙伴效应也是显著的,表明在一次治疗中客户的联盟比平时高,这预示着治疗师在随后的治疗中联盟会增加。客户评定的工作联盟和治疗师评定的工作联盟的增长都与客户的改善没有显著关联。客户评定的工作联盟和治疗师评定的工作联盟的可变性(波动较少)较低与较好的结果相关。较高的治疗师-演员和伙伴效应与客户的改善相关,但客户-演员和伙伴效应与客户的改善无关。平均工作联盟与客户的改善无关。讨论了对实践和研究的影响。(美国心理协会,2024 年)