Clients' and Therapists' Views of the Therapeutic Alliance: Similarities, Differences and Relationship to Therapy Outcome
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
UNLABELLED: To better understand how clients' and therapists' views of the therapeutic alliance differ and overlap, this study investigated, first, the components of the alliance that are relevant to the therapy participants; second, their relationship to post-therapy outcome; and third, the relationships between participants' alliance constructs. To identify participants' views, exploratory factor analyses were performed on clients' (n = 176) and therapists' (n = 133 observations) ratings of the Working Alliance Inventory (short form), the Helping Alliance Questionnaire and the California Psychotherapy Alliance Scales and conducted both on each measure separately and on the three measures combined. The results of the separate analyses indicated in general poor correspondence between the participant-derived components and each measure's a priori constructs. Results of the joint analyses suggested that clients view the alliance in terms of six basic components (Collaborative Work Relationship, Productive Work, Active Commitment, Bond, Non-disagreement on Goals/Tasks and Confident Progress), five of which were found to predict client-rated and/or therapist-rated post-therapy outcome. Results for therapists suggested four basic components (Collaborative Work Relationship, Therapist Confidence & Dedication, Client Commitment & Confidence, Client Working Ability), of which three predicted post-therapy outcome. Findings of significant, but modest to low moderate, correlations between several client and therapist joint factors suggested that despite similarities, the therapy partners' views of the alliance differ in important ways. Compared with therapists, clients appear to place greater emphasis on helpfulness, joint participation in the work of therapy and negative signs of the alliance. Implications of these findings are discussed. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE: Therapists should not assume that their views of the therapeutic relationship and therapeutic work are shared by their clients and are encouraged to seek the client's feedback. Therapists may benefit from conveying that the client's perspective on problems and relevant work is valued and that they are working with the client as a team. Therapists may need to explicitly address how the therapeutic work is helpful and conducive to desired changes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle