Within‐patient perceptions of alliance and attunement: Associations with progress in psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most frequently examined aspect of the therapeutic relationship is the working alliance, which reflects the conscious collaborative bond, and agreement on task and goal. In addition to the established importance of the working alliance, the therapists' attunement and responsiveness might reflect another important aspect of the therapeutic relationship that can be considered in relation to session-by-session progress over treatments. Emerging research suggests that the quality of the working alliance not only differs between patients but also within patients over time. However, little is known about the quality of the therapeutic relationship between and within patients in relation to progress in psychotherapy. We examined fluctuations of the working alliance measure (WAI) and the newly developed measure of the Patients' Experiences of Attunement and Responsiveness (PEAR) during treatment in a naturalistic sample of patients in an outpatient psychotherapy clinic. Multilevel modelling was used to examine the respective contribution of these measures to subsequent improvement in psychological functioning longitudinally. Results suggest that the within-patient effect, instead of between-patient effect, was significant for WAI (and did not reach significance for PEAR), indicating that the fluctuation of WAI was predictive of psychological functioning in the subsequent month. Based on these findings, therapists and their patients might benefit from regular tracking of the patient-reported working alliance. The findings underscore the importance of the alliance, specifically at the within-patient level. It also highlights the challenge for research to tap into other aspects of the therapeutic relationship that can help explain progress in therapy. Given the breadth and accessibility of the working alliance construct, more work is needed for researchers to examine the construct of attunement and responsiveness.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".