Measuring Therapeutic Alliance With Children in Residential Treatment and Therapeutic Day Care

Abstract

Purpose: This study examined the construct validity and reliability of a therapeutic alliance measure (Children's Alliance Questionnaire [CAQ]) for children with psychosocial and/or behavioral problems, receiving therapeutic residential care or day care in the Netherlands. Methods: Confirmatory factor analysis of a one-factor model ''therapeutic alliance'' was conducted on two samples of 115 and 116 children, aged 4-14 years. Reliability analysis and concurrent validity were examined. Results: Results showed a good fit to the data, indicating construct validity of the measures. Cronbach's a reliability coefficients were good for both alliance measures. Concurrent validity was supported by significant relations between the alliance scale and positive group climate (Group Climate Instrument for Children [GCIC]) and treatment motivation (Adolescent Treatment Motivation Questionnaire). No correlations with negative group climate (GCIC) were found. Discussion: The CAQ can be used as an assessment tool for therapeutic alliance within both residential treatment and therapeutic day care settings for children.

Repression in Residential Youth Care: A Scoping Review

“…The understanding of these transactional processes is necessary to stimulate professional behavior by staff (Van der Helm and Stams 2012). Negative transactional processes (as opposed to positive transactional processes, such as establishing a working alliance; Roest et al 2014) may occur between the youth and the staff because of fear, mechanisms of dehumanization, lack of empathy, and rationalization. At the next level, staff members and team leaders influence each other because of the identification and socialization processes.…”

Does punishment in secure residential youth care work? An overview of the evidence

“…Schubert et al (2012) found positive effects on young people's behaviour when the living group climate was non-coercive (see also Parhar et al, 2008) and Leeman et al (1993) showed that an institutional group intervention based on justice and a positive peer culture can promote socio-moral development and decrease recidivism (see also Van Stam et al, 2014). Furthermore, the institutional climate or living group climate may have influence whether an adolescent reduces antisocial behaviour through accepting an alliance with group workers (Bouffard and Piquero, 2010;Roest et al, 2014;Schubert et al, 2012). Recently, Hoogsteder et al (2014) conducted a quasi-experimental study in a secure juvenile justice institution and found that violent offenders' irrational cognitions, poor coping skills, aggression and recidivism risk were reduced and treatment motivation enhanced by a responsive and non-punitive living group climate that targeted the specific needs of the individuals those incarcerated.…”

Developing a positive living group climate in residential youth care: A single case study

“…The quantitative results of the Prison Group Climate Instrument (PGCI) (Author's own ), the Group Climate Instrument (GCI) (Strijbosch et al, ), the Children's Alliance Questionnaire (CAQ; Roest, Van der Helm, Strijbosch, Van Brandenburg, & Stams, ), and the Adolescence Treatment Motivation Questionnaire (ATMQ; Author's own, ) were summarized, and scale results were calculated. In preparation of the group meetings, the project leader analysed the outcomes.…”

“…In this questionnaire, five report scores needed to be given: the support by the group workers, things to be learned, the atmosphere in the unit/group, the honesty and the rules in the unit. Possible answers range from 1 ( very bad ) to 10 ( very good ). The Children's Alliance Questionnaire (CAQ 4–8 [10 questions] and 8–12/15 [nine questions]; Roest et al, ) documents the alliance between the individual group worker and the child. Items include My individual group worker understands me; My individual group worker has time to spend with me; … Possible answers to the subscales in the questionnaire CAQ (4–8) range from 1 ( totally not agree ) to 3 ( agree ).…”