Trial reportJournal of consulting and clinical psychology2018
When therapist estimations of the process of treatment can predict patients rating on outcome: The case of the working alliance.
Trial report in Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The beginning of the end: A comparison of treatment completers and early dropouts in trainee-provided time-limited Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.Counselling psychology quarterly · 2022Article
- Can we agree we just had a rupture? Patient-therapist congruence on ruptures and its effects on outcome in brief relational therapy versus cognitive-behavioral therapy.Journal of counseling psychology · 2020Article
- Sudden gains in the alliance in cognitive behavioral therapy versus brief relational therapy.Journal of consulting and clinical psychology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIt has been demonstrated that patient perspective on alliance can predict subsequent treatment outcome as reported by the therapist but not the other way around. This study aimed to investigate the circumstances in which therapists can provide estimations of alliance capable of predicting patient perceptions of subsequent session outcome. The study focused on 2 potential indicators: time in treatment and treatment efficacy.
methodData of 107 treatment completers assigned to either cognitive-behavioral therapy or alliance focused therapy were analyzed. Data included session-to-session assessments of alliance and the session outcome measure across the 30 weeks of treatment as well as pretreatment to posttreatment assessments of treatment efficacy using the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised. An actor-partner interdependence model of longitudinal hierarchically nested data, disentangled for within- and between-patients effects, was used. The interactive effects of time and treatment efficacy and their combined effect were examined.
resultsAt the sample level, as expected, the therapist perspective of alliance did not significantly predict patient perception of subsequent session outcome, but significant interaction effects were detected. Therapists' perspective on the alliance was a stronger predictor of patients' perception of subsequent session outcome when therapy was more rather than less effective. This effect was evident mainly early in treatment, during which greater variability across dyads was found.
conclusionsFindings suggest that although therapists' ratings of the alliance are not consistently predictive of patients' rating of subsequent session outcome, they are better predictors in more than in less effective treatments. (PsycINFO Database Record
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.