Background: The aim of the study was the prediction of the quality of early working alliance, using possible predictors among patient pretreatment variables: diagnoses, current and past relationships and intrapsychic ones. Data arefrom the ongoing, naturalistic Norwegian Multisite Project on Process and Outcome of Psychotherapy (NMSPOP). Methods: The sample, n = 270, is recruited from 15 outpatient clinics; 61.1% of the patients have personality disorders. Alliance was assessed with the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI), and predictors include independent clinicians’ evaluations of diagnostic/interpersonal/intrapsychic characteristics and the patients’ self-reports on similar and additional variables. Results: Four of 6 hypotheses were supported: Quality of working alliance is difficult to predict, early alliance is better predicted than later, diagnostic variables do not predict quality of working alliance, but quality of both current and past relationships is associated with working alliance. In a hierarchical multiple-regression analysis, 7% variance of working alliance in the 3rd session was explained from current relationship variables, whereas alliance in the 12th session was not predicted by the same model. Intrapsychic variables predicted the therapists’ ratings of alliance, but not the patients’ ratings. Conclusion: The results are in line with previous research, and also with the theoretical model for working alliance.

Keywords:
Prediction, Working alliance, Past and current relationships, Intrapsychic variables
1.
NMSPOP protocol. Oslo, Norwegian Multisite Study on Process and Outcome of Psychotherapy, 1995.
2.
Fava GA, Sonino N: Psychosomatic medicine: Emerging trends and perspectives. J Psychother Psychosom 2000;69:184–197.
3.
Marks L: Is a paradigm shift occurring in brief psychological treatment? J Psychother Psychosom 1999;68:169–170.
4.
Greenson RR: The working alliance and the transference neurosis. Psychoanal Q 1965;34:155–181.
5.
Gaston L: The concept of the alliance and its role in psychotherapy: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Psychotherapy 1990;27:143–153.
6.
Horvath AO, Greenberg LS: The Working Alliance. New York, Wiley & Sons, 1994.
7.
Horvath AO, Greenberg L: Development and validation of the working alliance inventory. J Couns Psychol 1989;36:223–233.
8.
Tracey TJ, Kokotovic AM: Factor structure of the working alliance inventory. J Consult Clin Psychol 1989;1:207–210.
9.
Hatcher RL, Barends AW: Patients’ view of the alliance in psychotherapy: Exploratory factor analysis of three alliance measures. J Consult Clin Psychol 1996;64:1326–1336.
10.
Bordin ES: The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy 1979;16:252–260.
11.
Bordin ES: Theory and research on the therapeutic working alliance: New directions; in Horvath AO, Greenberg LS (eds): The Working Alliance. New York, Wiley & Sons, 1994, pp 13–37.
12.
Henry WP, Strupp HW, Schacht TE, Gaston L: Psychodynamic approaches; in Bergin AE, Garfield SL (eds): Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. New York, Wiley & Sons, 1994, pp 484–485.
13.
Horvath AO, Symonds BD: Relation between working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. J Couns Psychol 1991;38:139–149.
14.
Martin DJ, Garske JP, Davis MK: Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. J Consult Clin Psychol 2000;68:438–450.
15.
Piper WE, Azim HFA, Joyce AS, McCallum M: Transference interpretations, therapeutic alliance and outcome in short-term individual therapy. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991;48:946–953.
16.
Moras K, Strupp H: Pretherapy interpersonal relations, patients’ alliance, and outcome in brief therapy. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1982;39:405–409.
17.
Ryan ER, Cicchetti DV: Predicting quality of alliance in the initial psychotherapy interview. J Nerv Ment Dis 1985;173:717–725.
18.
Piper WE, Azim HFA, Joyce AS, McCallum M, Nixon GWH, Segal PS: Quality of object relations versus interpersonal functioning as predictors of therapeutic alliance and psychotherapy outcome. J Nerv Ment Dis 1991;179:432–438.
19.
Kokotovic AM, Tracey TJ: Working alliance in the early phase of counseling. J Couns Psychol 1990;37:16–21.
20.
Mallinckrodt B: Clients’ representations of childhood emotional bonds with parents, social support, and formation of the working alliance. J Couns Psychol 1991;38:401–409.
21.
Mallinckrodt B: Change in working alliance, social support, and psychological symptoms in brief therapy. J Couns Psychol 1996;43:448–455.
22.
Mallinckrodt B, Coble HM, Gantt DL: Working alliance, attachment memories, and social competencies of women in brief therapy. J Couns Psychol 1995;42:79–84.
23.
Derogatis LR: SCL-90-R: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual (second edition). Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research 1983.
24.
Derogatis LR, Rickles K, Rock AF: The SCL-90 and the MMPI: A step in the validation of a new self-report scale. Br J Psychiatry 1976;128:280–289.
25.
Endicott J, Spitzer RI, Fleiss JL, Cohen J: The global assessment scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1984;41:301–304.
26.
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, ed 4 (DSM-IV). Washington, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
27.
Wilberg T: Clinical Studies of Personality Disordered Patients Treated in a Psychotherapeutic Day Unit, with Emphasis on Assessment, Treatment and Course; doctoral thesis, University of Oslo, 1999.
28.
Gunderson JG, Links PS, Reich JH: Competing models of personality disorders. J Pers Disord 1991;5:60–68.
29.
Widiger TA, Shea T: Differentiation of axis I and axis II disorders. J Abnorm Psychol 1991;100:399–406.
30.
Høglend P, Bøgwald KP, Amlo S, Heyerdahl O, Sørbye Ø, Marble A, Sjaastad MC, Bentsen H: Assessment of change in dynamic psychotherapy. J Psychother Pract Res 2000;9:190–199.
31.
Horowitz L, Rosenberg SE, Baer B, Ureno G, Villasenor V: The inventory of interpersonal problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. J Consult Clin Psychol 1988;56:885–892.
32.
Alden LE, Wiggins JS, Pincus AL: Construction of circumplex scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. J Pers Assess 1990;55:521–536.
33.
Gurtman MB, Balakrishnan JD: Circular measurement redux: The analysis and interpretation of interpersonal circle profiles. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 1998;5:344–360.
34.
Parker G, Tuplin H, Brown LB: A parental bonding instrument. Br J Med Psychol 1979;52:1–10.
35.
Benjamin LS: Structural analysis of social behavior. Psychol Rev 1974;81:392–425.
36.
Battle C, Imber S, Hoehn-Saric R, Stone AR, Nash EH, Frank JD: Target complaints as criteria of improvement. Am J Psychother 1966;20:184–192.
37.
Rokeach M: The Nature of Human Values. New York, Free Press, 1973.
38.
Tingey RC, Lambert MJ, Burlingame GM, Hansen NB: Assessing clinical significance: Proposed extensions to method. Psychother Res 1996;6:109–123.
39.
Lambert MJ, Hill CE: Assessing the outcome and process of psychotherapy; in Bergin AE, Garfield SL (eds): Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. New York, Wiley & Sons, 1994, pp 72–113.
40.
Altman D: Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London, Chapman & Hall, 1996, pp 340–341.
41.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S: Applied logistic regression. New York, Wiley & Sons, 1989, pp 86–87.
42.
Grimm LG, Yarnold PR: Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics. Washington, American Psychological Association, 1997, pp 17–24.
43.
Joyce AS, Piper WE: Expectancy, the therapeutic alliance, and treatment outcome in short-term individual psychotherapy. J Psychother Pract Res 1998;7:236–248.
44.
Piper WE, McCallum M, Joyce AS, Azim HF, Ogrodniczuk JS: Follow-up findings for interpretive and supportive forms of psychotherapy and patient personality variables. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999;67:267–273.
45.
Cohen J, Cohen P: Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, Erlbaum Associates, 1983, pp 133–177.
46.
Parker G: Special feature: The etiology of personality disorders: A review and consideration of research models. J Pers Disord 1997;11:345–369.
47.
Parker G: Parental reports of depressives. J Affect Disord 1981;3:131–140.
48.
Torgersen S, Alnæs R: Differential perception of parental bonding in schizotypal and borderline personality disorder patients. Compr Psychiatry 1992;33:34–38.
© 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel
2001
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.