Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42745333›Full record

ReviewFamily process2026

Core Processes in Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy: Testing Hypothesized Associations in Two Independent Samples.

Henk Jan Conradi, Sophie Jonker, Arjen Noordhof

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Family process, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Henk Jan ConradiDepartment of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8013-0408
Sophie JonkerDepartment of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7740-4497
Arjen NoordhofDepartment of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy (EFCT) is a widely used, evidence-based treatment with established effectiveness, and several underlying mechanisms have been examined. However, the assumptions of the full EFCT model have not yet been tested. The basic model proposes four interrelated layers within and between partners: (1) relationship satisfaction depends on (2) need fulfillment, which results from (3) support-giving, and is moderated by (4) attachment, emotional awareness/clarity, and conflict styles. We tested these associations using Structural Equation Modeling in AMOS with Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling in two independent Dutch samples (N = 848 and N = 938 partners). We found strong support for the basic model and successfully replicated this result: relationship satisfaction was explained for 60%-71% by the underlying layers, need fulfillment for 88%-89%, and support giving for 51%-53%. Extending layer (4) with emotion regulation and repair added little more explained variance, whereas extending it with validation did. The pivotal EFCT interaction, support-seeking and support-giving, was primarily explained by attachment and validation, with validation emerging as an important novel finding. This suggests a specific implication for clinical practice: reducing insecure attachment, particularly avoidance, and enhancing validation of each other's emotions and needs may be key therapeutic targets.

Indexed as

Couples TherapyEmotionsAdultFemaleHumansInterpersonal RelationsMaleModels, PsychologicalNetherlandsObject AttachmentPersonal Satisfactionaccessibility and responsivenessAPIMattachmentemotionally focused couple therapyneedsrelationship satisfactionSEMvalidation

Identifiers

PMID42745333
PMCPMC13578553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.