Italian versions of the rupture resolution rating system and the working alliance inventory observer short form: preliminary reliability and convergent validity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to translate the Rupture Resolution Rating System (3RS) and the Working Alliance Inventory -Observer Short Form (WAI-O-S) into Italian. As a preliminary step toward validation, inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of the translated measures were also examined. METHOD: First, forward-backward translation process was conducted to ensure conceptual and linguistic equivalence with the original English versions. Second, four trained raters independently applied the Italian versions of the 3RS and WAI-O-S to 47 psychotherapy sessions involving 20 different patients. Finally, inter-rater reliability (IRR) and convergent validity were analyzed. RESULTS: This study produced the first Italian versions of the 3RS and WAI-O-S, providing conceptually robust tools to assess therapeutic alliance and rupture-repair processes. Preliminary analyses showed acceptable inter-rater reliability for both measures, though some variability emerged in certain 3RS dimensions-particularly Therapist Withdrawal and Repair. Strong correlations between the 3RS Working Together score and the WAI-O-S total score offered preliminary evidence of convergent validity. CONCLUSION: These preliminary findings provide initial support for the reliability and validity of the Italian 3RS and WAI-O-S. Further studies in larger and more diverse samples are necessary to examine their generalizability and clarify their applicability.
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 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".