Background This study examined the psychometric properties of the Group Climate Instrument (GCI) in a sample of N = 189 adults (79% men) with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning who were residents of a treatment facility in the Netherlands. Method Construct validity of the GCI was examined by means of confirmatory factor analysis. Also, reliability and convergent validity of the GCI were examined. We also examined the variability in perception of the living group climate between and within living groups by computing intraclass correlation coefficients. Results The model contained four first‐order factors (support, growth, group atmosphere and repression) and a second‐order factor overall climate, providing preliminary support for construct validity of the GCI. Reliability coefficients were good for all factors. Preliminary evidence for convergent validity was found in significant moderate associations between subscales and single item ratings for the factors of group climate. The intraclass correlation coefficients indicated that a considerate proportion of variance can be attributed to between‐group differences. Conclusions The GCI might be used to assess perception of the living group climate for individuals with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning in psychiatric and forensic care settings, although further development of the GCI and replication of our findings seem necessary.

Alliance has been shown to predict treatment outcome in family-involved treatment for youth problems in several studies. However, meta-analytic research on alliance in family-involved treatment is scarce, and to date, no meta-analytic study on the alliance–outcome association in this field has paid attention to moderating variables. We included 28 studies reporting on the alliance–outcome association in 21 independent study samples of families receiving family-involved treatment for youth problems (N = 2126 families, M age youth ranging from 10.6 to 16.1). We performed three multilevel meta-analyses of the associations between three types of alliance processes and treatment outcome, and of several moderator variables. The quality of the alliance was significantly associated with treatment outcome (r = .183, p < .001). Correlations were significantly stronger when alliance scores of different measurement moments were averaged or added, when families were help-seeking rather than receiving mandated care and when studies included younger children. The correlation between alliance improvement and treatment outcome just failed to reached significance (r = .281, p = .067), and no significant correlation was found between split alliances and treatment outcome (r = .106, p = .343). However, the number of included studies reporting on alliance change scores or split alliances was small. Our findings demonstrate that alliance plays a small but significant role in the effectiveness of family-involved treatment. Future research should focus on investigating the more complex systemic aspects of alliance to gain fuller understanding of the dynamic role of alliance in working with families.

No abstract