Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35910993›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2022

The Working Alliance Inventory's Measurement Properties: A Systematic Review.

Davy Paap, Yasmaine H J M Karel, Arianne P Verhagen, Pieter U Dijkstra, Jan H B Geertzen, Grieteke Pool

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Responsible artificial intelligence integration framework for psychiatric guidelines.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Davy PaapDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Yasmaine H J M KarelCenter of Expertise Caring Society 3.0, Avans University of Applied Science, Breda, Netherlands.
Arianne P VerhagenDepartment General Practice, Erasmus Medical Centre University, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Pieter U DijkstraDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Jan H B GeertzenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Grieteke PoolSection Health Psychology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measurement properties of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI) and its various translations and adaptations for specific target groups have been investigated for over 30 years. No systematic review analyzing studies on measurement properties of the WAI has been conducted to date. COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurements INstruments (COSMIN) were developed for conducting high-quality systematic reviews on measurement properties in a transparent and standardized way. Aim of this study was to systematically review studies on measurement properties of the WAI, and its adapted versions, within psychotherapy, and other healthcare contexts using COSMIN criteria. PsycINFO, Medline, and EMBASE were searched (1989-2021). In all phases of the review procedure, study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, rating of the quality of measurement properties, and rating of the quality of evidence for measurement properties, disagreement between reviewers was resolved by discussion. Results on validity, internal structure, reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness were analyzed. In total 66 studies were included. In most studies, evidence for measurement properties was according to COSMIN criteria, insufficient, lacking, or conflicting. Content validity was rated insufficient because neither patients nor healthcare professionals were involved in the development and validation process. Hence evidence for content validity of the WAI is unknown. Conflicting evidence was found for structural validity. Evidence for internal consistency could not be established. Limited evidence was found for inter-rater reliability and convergent validity. Conflicting evidence was also found for test-retest reliability and divergent validity. COSMIN criteria exposed persistent problems in validation studies of the WAI. These findings may indicate that measurement properties of the WAI are not up to current standards, or that COSMIN criteria may be less appropriate for assessing measurement properties of the WAI, or it could indicate both. The results of this systematic review suggest that WAI outcomes should be interpreted with caution and further research is needed regarding the content validity and hypotheses development. For the future, the theoretical framework underlying the measurement of the working alliance needs to be studied in psychotherapy and other health contexts, and tested in methodologically sound studies. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42019051428.

Indexed as

COSMIN systematic reviewmeasurement propertiespsychometricsystematic literature reviewsystematic reviewtherapeutic allianceWorking Alliance Inventory

Identifiers

PMID35910993
PMCPMC9337219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.