Systematic Review of Therapeutic Alliance Measurement Instruments in Physiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Interest in measuring the therapeutic alliance has grown in recent years in both the clinical field and the literature. Several instruments can be used to measure the therapeutic alliance in physiotherapy, and choosing the most appropriate one is challenging. The purpose of this systematic review was to (1) identify the instruments that have been used to evaluate the therapeutic alliance in physiotherapy and (2) appraise the methodological quality of studies of the psychometric properties of these instruments. Method: The researchers carried out a systematic search in MEDLINE, SciELO, PsycINFO, Theseus, Cochrane Library, and Open Grey. Only articles published in English and Spanish were included. The articles were evaluated by two independent reviewers in accordance with the COnsensus- based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) and Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis standards, using the four-point COSMIN checklist. Results: Four studies were included in this review, and four instruments evaluated the therapeutic alliance in physiotherapy. The methodological quality of the studies was fair for most of the psychometric characteristics analyzed. Conclusions: The Working Alliance Inventory is the best instrument to measure therapeutic alliance and the measure that had the greatest number of psychometric properties evaluated against the COSMIN standard. More studies of high methodological quality are required to evaluate the psychometric properties of the instruments used to assess the therapeutic alliance in physiotherapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".