Factorial validation of a French short‐form of the Working Alliance Inventory

Corbière, Marc; Bisson, Jocelyn; Lauzon, Sylvie; Ricard, Nicole

doi:10.1002/mpr.27

Cited by 87 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Van de Vijver (1998) argues that the equivalence of the translations should be empirically scrutinized. A corresponding study (e. g. Bushnell et al, 2005;Corbiére et al, 2006) for the SIS is still lacking.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The factorial structure of the Suicide Intent Scale: a comparative study in clinical samples from 11 European regions

Antretter¹,

Dunkel²,

Häring³

et al. 2008

Int J Methods Psych Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the Suicide Intent Scale (SIS) is a widely used instrument in research on suicidal behavior, comparative research on the latent structure of the SIS has been neglected. To determine whether a general factor model of the SIS is supported, alternative factor models of the SIS were evaluated comparatively in 11 clinical samples. The SIS was applied as part of a structured clinical interview to patients after an episode of non-fatal suicidal behavior. The samples were drawn from 11 study centers within the frame of the WHO/EURO multicenter study on suicidal behavior. Three different two-factor and two three-factor models of the SIS were examined in each sample using principal component analysis with orthogonal Procrustes rotation. The factorial structure of the 'subjective part' of the SIS (items 9-14) was strongly supported, whereas an acceptable model fit for the 'objective part' was not found. Possible future revisions of 'objective' SIS items may be worth consideration. As a limitation, the results of the study might not generalize to other samples that use different definitions of non-fatal suicidal behavior.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The factorial structure of the Suicide Intent Scale: a comparative study in clinical samples from 11 European regions

Antretter¹,

Dunkel²,

Häring³

et al. 2008

Int J Methods Psych Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This variable was measured using the 12-item 7-point Likert scale Working Alliance Inventory, short form or WAI-S (Corbiére, Bisson, Lauzon, & Ricard, 2006;Tracey & Kokotovic, 1989). This inventory measures three components of the working alliance: (1) goals (for instance, "We are working toward goals that we have agreed on"); (2) tasks ("My coach and I agreed on the steps to follow to improve my situation"); and (3) bonding ("My coach and I have developed mutual trust").…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The coach‐coachee relationship in executive coaching: A field study

Baron

Morin

2009

Human Resource Dev Quarterly

216

285

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous authors have suggested that the working relationship between coach and coachee constitutes an essential condition to the success of executive coaching. This study empirically investigated the links between the coach-coachee relationship and the success of a coaching intervention in an organizational setting. Data were collected from two samples: 73 managers who received executive coaching for a period of eight months and 24 coaches. Results from 31 coach-coachee dyads were analyzed. Results indicate that the coach-coachee relationship plays a mediating role between the coaching received and development of the coachees' self-efficacy. Findings also show four significant correlates to the coach-coachee relationship: the coach's selfefficacy with regard to facilitating learning and results, the coachee's motivation to transfer, his or her perception of supervisor support, and the number of coaching sessions received.In organizational settings, executive coaching has become an increasingly common skill-development method (Bacon & Spear, 2003;Kampa-Kokesch & Anderson, 2001). The International Coaching Federation (ICF) alone numbered 15,000 members in 90 countries in 2008. However, many authors have noted the lack of scientific studies on the process and the outcome of executive coaching (see Lowman, 2005;Sue-Chan & Latham, 2004), and others have argued that this development approach is overused considering the paucity of research on the subject (McGovern et al., 2001). In short, the results from empirical studies indicate that executive coaching is positively associated with self-efficacy (Baron & Morin, 2007;Evers, Brouwers, & Tomic, 2006), leadership (Thach, 2002) (Smither, London, Flautt, Vargas, & Kucine, 2003). In regard to the process, very little is known about the variables that influence its effectiveness.The working relationship established between the coach and the coachee appears to be a key process variable. Numerous authors have suggested that a good working relationship constitutes an essential condition for the success of executive coaching (Kampa & White, 2002;Kampa-Kokesch & Anderson, 2001;Kilburg, 2001;Lowman, 2005). However, there are scarcely any reported studies of the link between the coach-coachee relationship and the effectiveness of executive coaching. Further, to our knowledge there are no studies that have examined the determinants of the coach-coachee working relationship. The goal of our study was to partially fill that gap in the literature. Our first objective aimed to answer the question, What role does the working relationship between the coach and the coachee have in executive coaching outcomes? In this study, exploration of the coach-coachee working relationship has been largely inspired by the literature on the working alliance from the psychotherapy domain. Specifically, we attempted to empirically explore the links between the coach-coachee relationship and self-efficacy, a variable significantly associated with training outcomes (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000;Salas & C...

show abstract

“…The working alliance describes warmth, trust, and a shared sense of the presenting problem, solution, and the therapeutic goals between a client and clinician (Corbière, Bisson, Lauzon, & Ricard, 2006;Horvath & Greenberg, 1989). A large body of evidence has identified the working alliance as one of the strongest predictors of outcomes in the rehabilitation of patients with persistent physical and mental health problems (Ahn & Wampold, 2001;Bennett, Fuertes, Keitel, & Phillips, 2011;Flückiger, Del Re, Wampold, Symonds, & Horvath, 2012;Miciak, Gross, & Joyce, 2012).…”

Section: Processes Linking Perceived Injustice To Adverse Pain Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%