团体治疗中的联盟破裂检测与修复:使用团体问卷——GQ

IF 1 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL International Journal of Group Psychotherapy Pub Date : 2021-04-01 Epub Date: 2021-02-25 DOI:10.1080/00207284.2020.1844010
Gary M Burlingame, Cameron T Alldredge, Rachel A Arnold
{"title":"团体治疗中的联盟破裂检测与修复:使用团体问卷——GQ","authors":"Gary M Burlingame, Cameron T Alldredge, Rachel A Arnold","doi":"10.1080/00207284.2020.1844010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The identification of relationship ruptures in group therapy coupled with repair efforts by the group leader are addressed from a measurement-based care (MBC) perspective. Several MBC systems are now recognized as evidence-based treatments, and these systems typically use self-report assessment of both outcome and relationship measures. After laying a brief foundation of alliance rupture and repair from an individual therapy perspective, the complexity of applying alliance and repair across the multiple therapeutic relationships and constructs found in the group treatment literature is considered. The Group Questionnaire (GQ) is an empirically derived measure designed to capture the multiple relationship structures (member-member, member-leader, and member-group) and constructs (alliance, cohesion, climate, and empathy) in group therapy. Similarities and differences between the GQ and alliance rupture and repair measures are considered, followed by algorithms used to identify rupture and repair in group therapy on the three GQ subscales-positive bond, positive work, and negative relationship. MBC clinical reports are used to illustrate how rupture is identified at both a group and individual member perspective along with information to support repair interventions. Finally, both clinical and empirical reasons for using the MBC approach are considered along with clinical observations.</p>","PeriodicalId":46441,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Group Psychotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alliance Rupture Detection and Repair in Group Therapy: Using the Group Questionnaire--GQ.\",\"authors\":\"Gary M Burlingame, Cameron T Alldredge, Rachel A Arnold\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00207284.2020.1844010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The identification of relationship ruptures in group therapy coupled with repair efforts by the group leader are addressed from a measurement-based care (MBC) perspective. Several MBC systems are now recognized as evidence-based treatments, and these systems typically use self-report assessment of both outcome and relationship measures. After laying a brief foundation of alliance rupture and repair from an individual therapy perspective, the complexity of applying alliance and repair across the multiple therapeutic relationships and constructs found in the group treatment literature is considered. The Group Questionnaire (GQ) is an empirically derived measure designed to capture the multiple relationship structures (member-member, member-leader, and member-group) and constructs (alliance, cohesion, climate, and empathy) in group therapy. Similarities and differences between the GQ and alliance rupture and repair measures are considered, followed by algorithms used to identify rupture and repair in group therapy on the three GQ subscales-positive bond, positive work, and negative relationship. MBC clinical reports are used to illustrate how rupture is identified at both a group and individual member perspective along with information to support repair interventions. Finally, both clinical and empirical reasons for using the MBC approach are considered along with clinical observations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46441,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Group Psychotherapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Group Psychotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00207284.2020.1844010\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/2/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Group Psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00207284.2020.1844010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从基于测量的护理(MBC)的角度探讨了团体治疗中关系破裂的识别以及团体领导者的修复努力。一些MBC系统现在被认为是基于证据的治疗方法,这些系统通常使用自我报告评估结果和关系措施。在从个体治疗的角度对联盟破裂和修复做了简单的基础之后,我们考虑了在群体治疗文献中发现的跨多种治疗关系和结构应用联盟和修复的复杂性。群体问卷(GQ)是一种经验推导的测量方法,旨在捕捉群体治疗中的多重关系结构(成员-成员、成员-领导和成员-群体)和结构(联盟、凝聚力、气候和共情)。本文考虑了GQ和联盟破裂和修复措施之间的异同,然后采用算法在三个GQ亚量表上识别团体治疗中的破裂和修复——积极联系、积极工作和消极关系。MBC临床报告用于说明如何从群体和个体成员的角度识别破裂,以及支持修复干预的信息。最后,结合临床观察,考虑了使用MBC方法的临床和经验原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Alliance Rupture Detection and Repair in Group Therapy: Using the Group Questionnaire--GQ.

The identification of relationship ruptures in group therapy coupled with repair efforts by the group leader are addressed from a measurement-based care (MBC) perspective. Several MBC systems are now recognized as evidence-based treatments, and these systems typically use self-report assessment of both outcome and relationship measures. After laying a brief foundation of alliance rupture and repair from an individual therapy perspective, the complexity of applying alliance and repair across the multiple therapeutic relationships and constructs found in the group treatment literature is considered. The Group Questionnaire (GQ) is an empirically derived measure designed to capture the multiple relationship structures (member-member, member-leader, and member-group) and constructs (alliance, cohesion, climate, and empathy) in group therapy. Similarities and differences between the GQ and alliance rupture and repair measures are considered, followed by algorithms used to identify rupture and repair in group therapy on the three GQ subscales-positive bond, positive work, and negative relationship. MBC clinical reports are used to illustrate how rupture is identified at both a group and individual member perspective along with information to support repair interventions. Finally, both clinical and empirical reasons for using the MBC approach are considered along with clinical observations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Recognized as the leading source of information on group therapy theory, practice, and research, this journal features contributions from foremost experts in the field. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy offers: - Clinical articles on group treatment models, process issues, and techniques - Research reviews that keep practitioners up to date - Thought-provoking essays in the Reader"s Forum and Commentary sections - Reviews of current books and video releases - Special issues on such topics as evidence-based practice and ethics
期刊最新文献
Group Cohesion in Experiential Growth Groups: A Multilevel Growth Analysis. Mediation Effects of Group Cohesion in Group-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Youth Anxiety Disorders. Sibling Relations and the Horizontal Axis in Theory and Practice: Contemporary Group Analysis, Psychoanalysis and Organizational Consultancy Improvements in Quality of Life and Readiness for Change After Participating in an Eating Disorder Psychoeducation Group: A Pilot Study. Therapeutic Groups to Help People Forgive Others: A Case Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1