Assessing alliance ruptures and resolutions: Reliability and validity of the Collaborative Interactions Scale-revised version

Abstract

The results indicate that the revised CIS is a reliable rating system that is useful for both empirical research and clinical assessments. Clinical or methodological significance of this article: The CIS-R is a reliable rating system that is suitable for both empirical research and clinical assessment. It is useful for recognizing rupture and resolution processes, both in clinical everyday practice and in psychotherapists' training. Application of the CIS-R promotes clinical reflection on the therapeutic action used to manage ruptures in a session.

The Action of Verbal and Non-verbal Communication in the Therapeutic Alliance Construction: A Mixed Methods Approach to Assess the Initial Interactions With Depressed Patients

“…This relational dimension consists of a continuous negotiation process between the patient's and therapist's needs and passes through rupture and repairs moments implemented by both participants that influence change (Safran et al, 2011;Locati et al, 2019). Precisely, ruptures manifest themselves through phases of lack of coordination characterized by non-cooperative behaviors between participants, while repairs through coordination phases identified by cooperative behaviors; both of them are expressed through verbal and non-verbal communication (Colli and Lingiardi, 2009;Morán et al, 2016;Colli et al, 2017). The therapist's capacity to acknowledge and manage these moments could lead the therapy to positive changes or negative results (Eubanks et al, 2018).…”

Rupture Resolution Rating System (3RS): Development and validation

“…Both the Collaborative Interaction Scale and the observer-based version of the System for Observing Family Therapy Alliances (SOFTA-o;Friedlander, Escudero, & Heatherington, 2006) include markers of therapist behaviors that negatively impact the therapeutic alliance. These measures have both demonstrated interrater reliability and construct validity (Colli, Gentile, Condino, & Lingiardi, 2017;Friedlander et al, 2006), which suggests that coding therapist rupture markers is a feasible task. Drawing on the data we have collected with our current therapist contribution item, we hope to create therapist markers of rupture that better capture how both members of the dyad co-construct alliance ruptures (see Safran & Muran, 2000).…”

Ruptures and repairs of group therapy alliance. An untold story in psychotherapy research

“…We suggest here that discrepancies in alliance ratings at various levels of the group may be indicators of alliance ruptures and PRRSA is a promising strategy to examine group member’s alliance in the context of the alliances of the other group members. However, the research in groups needs to go further and begin to adapt and apply alliance rupture ratings, such as with the 3RS (Eubanks et al, 2015 ) or the Collaborative Interactions Scale (Colli et al, 2017 ) to begin to untangle the relative impacts of alliance ruptures and to give therapists direction on how to best repair different types of alliance rupture at different levels in the group. To illustrate some of these challenges and concepts, we provided three clinical vignettes of alliance ruptures and repairs or failures to repair.…”

“…Observer-rated methods allow researchers to identify types of ruptures that patient (and therapist) may be unaware of, identify alliance fluctuations within a therapy session, and therapist resolution strategies. Such observer rating measures include the Rupture Resolution Rating System (3RS; Eubanks, Muran, & Safran, 2015 ) and the Collaborative Interactions Scale (Colli, Gentile, Condino, & Lingiardi, 2017 ).…”