4.2 Article

Is it me, is it you or is it both of US? Applying the social relations model to disentangle the components of the therapeutic bond

Journal

PSYCHOTHERAPY RESEARCH
Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 30-44

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10503307.2022.2126334

Keywords

therapeutic alliance; dyadic process; process-outcome; mixed linear models; many-with-many

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the contributions of therapists and patients to the therapeutic bond and its association with treatment outcome. The results showed that the different components of the therapeutic bond had significant effects on treatment outcome, particularly at the within- and between-therapist, and within-patient levels.
Objective The study investigated the contribution of therapists and patients to the therapeutic bond and their associations (at the within and between levels) to treatment outcome. On this aim, the social relations model (SRM, aimed to analyze dyadic interpersonal data) was implemented. Method A novel design for individual psychotherapy studies was adopted, a many-with-many asymmetrical block dyadic design, in which several patients interact with several therapists. Hierarchical linear models were computed to study through variance partitioning the different components of the SRM and their association to treatment outcome. Results All SRM components (with significant effects at therapist- and patient- within and between levels) resulted in significant contributions to the bond. However, only components at the within- and between-therapist, and within-patient levels resulted in significant associations with outcome. Conclusion Given the dyadic nature of the bond, our results support not only studying and offering clinical training on interpersonal therapeutic skills but also on constant monitoring and feedback of the relationship at the more idiosyncratic level.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available