The role of setting versus treatment type in alliance within youth therapy.
View/ Open
16116474.pdf (132.0Kb)
Access Status
Full text of the requested work is not available in DASH at this time ("restricted access"). For more information on restricted deposits, see our FAQ.Author
McLeod, Bryce D.
Jensen-Doss, Amanda
Tully, Carrie B.
Southam-Gerow, Michael A.
Kendall, Philip C.
Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000081Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
McLeod, Bryce D., Amanda Jensen-Doss, Carrie B. Tully, Michael A. Southam-Gerow, John R. Weisz, and Philip C. Kendall. 2016. “The Role of Setting Versus Treatment Type in Alliance Within Youth Therapy.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 84 (5): 453–464. doi:10.1037/ccp0000081.Abstract
Objective: Does the strength of the youth–therapist alliance differ across treatment settings or treatment type? We examined these questions in the context of youth therapy. Method: Eighty-nine youths (M age = 10.56, SD = 1.99; 63.70% Caucasian; 52.80% male) diagnosed with an anxiety disorder received (a) manual-based individual cognitive–behavioral therapy (ICBT) in a research setting, (b) manual-based ICBT in practice settings, or (c) nonmanualized usual care (UC) in practice settings. Coders, using the Therapy Process Observational Coding System–Alliance scale, rated 865 sessions. Youth completed the Therapeutic Alliance Scale for Children at posttreatment. Results: Youth who received ICBT in a research setting had significantly higher observer-rated alliance than youth who received either therapy delivered in practice settings. In practice settings, youth who received ICBT had significantly stronger observer-rated alliance early in treatment than youth in UC, but this difference was not observed at the end of treatment. Similarly, youth-report alliance at posttreatment was significantly higher in ICBT in the research setting, and there was no difference between ICBT and UC delivered in practice settings. Alliance differences largely held when controlling for youth characteristics; however, differences early in treatment between the ICBT groups were no longer statistically significant when controlling for anxiety severity or primary anxiety diagnosis. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that (a) the alliance may be stronger in research settings, and (b) treatment manuals do not undermine alliance. Future research is required to help pinpoint whether other youth, therapist, or setting factors contribute to the lower alliance seen in practice settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)Citable link to this page
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34744109
Collections
- FAS Scholarly Articles [18292]
Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)