Methodological examination of videotape-assisted reviews in brief therapy: Helpfulness ratings, therapists intentions, client reactions, mood, and session evaluation.

Abstract

One of the continuing issues in process research has concerned the impact that the methods and measures used have on the data collected and the conclusions drawn (see Hill, 1991, andLambert & Hill, 1994, for reviews). For example, an ongoing concern has been that data collection may be unduly intrusive and may alter the quality or nature of the therapeutic interaction. Other concerns have been expressed about the reliability and validity of process measures and the effects of situational variables on data. Because the results of any study are only as good as the quality of the data generated, researchers need to have evidence that supports the efficacy of their methods and measures.In this study, we focused on several issues that may influence the results of process studies: (a) the validity of videotape-assisted reviews as a means of studying process, in terms of whether ratings made during videotape-assisted reviews reflect experiences during sessions and whether videotape-assisted reviews influence mood and evaluations of session quality; (b) the stability and validity of helpfulness ratings; (c) the stability of therapist intentions and client reactions; and (d) the effects of client and therapist mood on postsession judgments. Validity of Videotape-Assisted ReviewsAn increasing number of studies involve videotape-assisted reviews to collect data from therapists and clients about their experiences during therapy sessions (e.g.,

Harmful and helpful therapy practices with consensually non-monogamous clients: Toward an inclusive framework

“…Using a singleitem measure is a common practice to investigate client perceptions of therapy (e.g., Fridman, 2010;Fuller & Hill, 1985;Horvath, Marx, & Kamann, 1990), with face-valid items typically yielding high levels of predictive validity (Hoyt, 2002). Single-item measures of helpfulness are also known to be stable over time, consistent between clients and therapists, and predictive of session outcome measures (Hill et al, 1994). They are also commonly used as a treatment outcome (e.g., Hill, et al, 1994;Elliott, 1985;Liddle, 1996) and have been found to hold concurrent validity with clients' overall satisfaction with their therapist (Conte, Buckley, Picard, & Karasu's, 1994).…”

“…Single-item measures of helpfulness are also known to be stable over time, consistent between clients and therapists, and predictive of session outcome measures (Hill et al, 1994). They are also commonly used as a treatment outcome (e.g., Hill, et al, 1994;Elliott, 1985;Liddle, 1996) and have been found to hold concurrent validity with clients' overall satisfaction with their therapist (Conte, Buckley, Picard, & Karasu's, 1994).…”