Retraction of Kivlighan et al. (2017).

Reports the retraction of "Congruence and discrepancy between working alliance and real relationship: Variance decomposition and response surface analyses" by Dennis M. Kivlighan Jr., Kathryn Kline, Charles J. Gelso and Clara E. Hill (Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2017[Jul], Vol 64[4], 394-409). The following article (https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000216) is being retracted. This retraction is at the request of coauthors Kivlighan, Hill, and Gelso after the results of an investigation by the University of Maryland Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB found that the study included data from between one and four therapy clients of the Maryland Psychotherapy Clinic and Research Laboratory (MPCRL) who either had not been asked to provide consent or had withdrawn consent for their data to be included in the research. Kline was not responsible for obtaining and verifying participant consent but agreed to the retraction of this article. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2017-15328-001.) We examined how congruence and discrepancy in clients' and therapists' ratings of the working alliance (WA) and real relationship (RR) were related to client-rated session quality (SES; Session Evaluation Scale). Ratings for 2517 sessions of 144 clients and 23 therapists were partitioned into therapist-level, client-level, and session-level components and then analyzed using multilevel, polynomial regression and response surface analysis. For both clients and therapists, at all levels of analysis (except the therapist level for therapist ratings), SES was highest when combined WA and RR ratings were high, and lowest when combined ratings were low. For client ratings, discrepancy between WA and RR, at the client and session levels, was associated with greater session quality. Some clients perceived greater session quality when, across all sessions, WA was stronger than RR and other clients perceived greater session quality when RR was stronger than WA. Within clients, session quality was highest when some sessions had a stronger WA than RR whereas other sessions had a stronger RR than WA. These findings are compatible with a responsiveness framework, therapists varied the balance of WA and RR to suit situational demands or needs of different clients. When therapists rated WA and RR the opposite pattern of results emerged; clients perceived greater session quality when therapists' WA and RR ratings, for a session were high and consistent (i.e., no discrepancy between WA and RR). In addition, across all sessions, clients perceived greater session quality when WA and RR ratings were high and consistent. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).