French Adaptation and Validation of the Helping Alliance Questionnaires for Child, Parents, and Therapist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To adapt the Helping Alliance Questionnaires for Child and Parents (HAQ-CP) into French and to assess their validity and reproducibility for use with the child, parent, and therapist. METHOD: First, the 3 US versions of the questionnaires were translated into French by 3 French-English bilingual translators (who were native speakers), and the translations were then discussed by an expert committee to ensure that the concept explored within the French context was efficiently targeted. Second, the psychometric properties of the French version were investigated in a cross-sectional, multicentre study. The questionnaires were completed by 148 children and adolescents, aged 9 years or older and with various conditions, who were followed in 3 university hospital outpatient clinics and 2 ambulatory psychiatry units, and also by their parents and therapists. RESULTS: The instruments were quick and easy to administer, and acceptability was good. All 3 versions proved unidimensional in factorial analysis (80% of variance was explained) with high internal construct validity (Cronbach's alpha = 0.8). Reproducibility was satisfactory (intraclass correlation coefficients were as follows: child, 0.84; parent, 0.84; and therapist, 0.87). Concordance of the 3 alliance assessments was moderate. CONCLUSION: This work provides child psychiatrists with a valid measure of the therapeutic alliance. Its predictive value, while recognized in adults, remains to be demonstrated in children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".