No abstract

Aspects of the reliability and criterion-related validity of the patient version of the California Psychotherapy Alliance Scales (CALPAS-P) were examined. The sample consisted of 147 patients consulting in private practice. These patients completed the 24-item CALPAS-P designed to assess 4 alliance dimensions. They also filled out questionnaires on symptomatology (SCL-10), intimacy problems (IIP), social desirability (MC-SDS), and satisfaction (CSQ-8). Coefficients of internal consistency varied from .43 to .73 for the4 scales and reached .83 for the total CALPAS-P. Correlations among CALPAS-P scales ranged from .37 to .62. Patients', therapists', and treatments' characteristics were not related toCALPAS-P scales. Selected CALPAS-Pscales were related to symptomatology and intimacy problems, whereas all scales were associated with satisfaction in therapy. No association was found between CALPAS-P scales and estimates of social desirability Confirmatory factor analysis would help support the theoretically based dimensionality of the CALPAS-P.

The California Therapeutic Alliance Rating System, CALTARS, was used by judges to rate four therapy sessions for each of 52 subjects treated in brief dynamic psychotherapy for pathological grief. A principal-components analysis provided support for the theoretically proposed domains of alliance. The interrater reliability at the treatment level was satisfactory for the five component-based scales. As hypothesized, scores reflecting positive contribution to the alliance were positively related to educational attainment, motivation for psychotherapy, pretreatment interpersonal functioning, patient experiencing in therapy, symptom improvement, and gains in interpersonal functioning but negatively associated with stressful life events and greater therapist emphasis on addressing patient resistances. As further hypothesized, scores reflecting negative contribution to the alliance were positively associated with greater therapist emphasis on addressing resistances. Alliance ratings were largely independent of pretreatment symptomatology. These findings build toward the construct validity of the CALTARS.The therapeutic alliance has increasingly been the focus of both clinical and research interest in the study of the change process in psychotherapy (Hartley & Strupp, 1983;Luborsky, Crits-Christoph, Alexander, Margolis, & Cohen, 1983). Recent reviews of empirical studies (Frieswyk et al., 1986;Hartley, 1985;Orlinsky & Howard, 1986) support the view that alliance measures are robust predictors of outcome in diverse psychotherapies (Marmar, Gaston, Gallagher, & Thompson, in press;Rush, 1985;Wilson & Evans, 1977). Despite the growing body of evidence supporting the importance of the alliance as a predictor of psychotherapy outcome, there has been less emphasis on identifying and validating the specific components of this complex construct. This leaves considerable uncertainty as to precisely what alliance scales purport to measure.The California Therapeutic Alliance Rating System, CAL-TARS, in contrast to earlier measures of the alliance, places greater emphasis on the affective and attitudinal aspect of the alliance as opposed to specific therapeutic interventions (Marmar, Horowitz, Weiss, & Marziali, 1986). The need for more systematic research on the construct validity of this alliance measure motivated the present study. We identified pretreatment, process, and outcome variables for which a clear pat-

No abstract

No abstract