Theories of Therapeutic Alliance

Theories of cure AllianceQUOTE- The alterative hamper is a key concept and quintessential variable whose importance is comm exclusively accepted. It is seen as a multi-dimensional concept, emerging trends indicate four dimensions, that is to say the long-sufferings affective relationship to the healer the patients capacity to purposefully flex in therapy the therapists empathic understanding and conflict the client/therapist agreement on the goals and tasks of interference. B. JUST 1997EssayThe concept of the sanative Alliance has its roots in the seminal works of Freud when he began formulating his theories in respect of the various concepts relating to the phenomenon and self-propelleds of transference. (Freud S 1912). Freud began to hint to the concept in his early writings in divers(prenominal) terms as a the therapeutic, working, or helping shackle which encapsulated the idea that a relationship between therapist and patient was important for therapeutic success. We note, in the context of this essay, that Freuds opinion was that such a working arrangement was important but not essential for a therapeutic outcome. His early comments tended to refer to the positive feelings that develop between doctor and patient although, as his theories evolved, these concepts developed into more concrete forms.As is the case with most evolving concepts it was developed and expanded by a human body of some other notable figures. Zetzel looked at a number of different types of alliance formation (Zetzel E R 1956) and Greenson conceptualised this in a brimming form drawing a distinction between the real and adaptive forms of this type of relationship and drawing attention to the transferential properties and the possibility of the transference of fantasy in the adaptive elements of the alliance. (Greenson R R 1967)Working at about the alike time as Greenson in the USA, Rogers characterised the Therapeutic Alliance in the terminology of Client-centered the rapy and, for the graduation exercise time in the literature, we find a reference to such an alliance being call uped essential rather than desirable for the possibility of a positive outcome. (Rogers C R 1965). Rodgers referred to the Therapeutic Alliance as an empathetic bond which had to be actively developed by both doctor and patient and was an essential antecedent to any form of exploration of the patients problems.Bordin expanded and generalised this concept further still and sought to increase its usefulness by adapting it to psychotherapy in all of its various forms. (Bordin E S 1979) and, in a seminal move towards Justs analysis, proposed collar elemental components of the Therapeutic Alliance, namely the identification of the goal, the identification of the task in hand and the formation of the doctor / patient bond of trust and empathy.In consideration of the title of this essay we should consider this analysis more fully. Bordin conceived of the Therapeutic Alliance as a totally bipartisan twisting which required an equal (but different) input from both therapist and patient. This construction required the mutual identification and recognition of the sh bed goals that were going to be chance upond together with an agreed and accepted delineation and acknowledgement of the various tasks necessary to achieve these goals and the bond which he saw as and attachment bond generated primarily from mutual respect and empathy. (Bordin E S 1979). It follows from this analysis, that Bordin conceived the Therapeutic Alliance not as just aboutthing which arose spontaneously form the efforts and interaction of therapist and patient, but as the actual vehicle and mechanism by which psychotherapy worked. His attempts to apply this concept to the various modern-day forms of psychotherapy culminated with the realisation and articulation that the different forms of psychotherapy focussed in on, and exploited different aspects of the Therapeutic Alliance at d ifferent stages of the treatment. This finding is echoed in other writings.As we involve outlined, the concept of the Therapeutic Alliance has its origins in the psychodynamic traditions of psychotherapy but has been embraced by the other traditions as well. Those theorists who are grounded in the cognitive school also acknowledge the establishment of a collaborative relationship between therapist and patient as an essential prerequisite to effective therapy. (Beck A T et al. 1979)More recent work as sought to assess the nature and depth of the Therapeutic Alliance in the various disciplines. Martins rub de force on the subject is an impressive meta-analysis which sought to quantify the relationship between the capacity of the Therapeutic Alliance and the make uptual(prenominal) outcome of treatment. (Martin D J et al. 2000).His findings suggest that it depends how one quantifies the Therapeutic Alliance as to how strong the relationship is assemble to be. This is an area that we shall return to shortly. Horvath takes this commit further with a similar meta-analysis crossways various forms of psychotherapy and comes to the conclusion that the impact of the Therapeutic Alliance is roughly similar in the different forms and the efficacy of outcome is directly related to the forcefulness of the Therapeutic Alliance bond, irrespective of which particular mode of measurement is used. (Horvath A O et al. 1991).These issues, and indeed the thrust behind Justs terminology of the Therapeutic Alliance as being the quintessential variable are all totally dependent on just how one defines or measures the concept. It is clear from the discussions presented already that it is a multidimensional concept. One is certainly tempted to fete, from a brief overview of the literature, that it has at least as many dimensions as there are government writing on the issue. Although such a comment is superficially clearly bordering on the flippant, is can be taken at a much d eeper level as a reflection of the fact that the Therapeutic Alliance is defined and measured by different authors in different ways.Historically the evolution of the major power to measure the strength of the alliance has evolved in much the same was (and to some extent in parallel) as the actual formulation of the concepts of the Therapeutic Alliance itself. (Luborsky L et al. 1983). In essence, a judgement of the extent to which one considers the Therapeutic Alliance essential rather than simply desirable, is dependent on the way that one all quantifies or measures it. If we consider the implications of this statement further we can put forward comments by two authorities that we have quoted earlier in a different context. In their critical analysis of the role of the Therapeutic Alliance in the field of general psychotherapy, Horvath and Luborsky suggest that research is unlikely to provide guidance to clinical drill unless the relations between clearly defined therapist ac tions in specific contexts and the effect of these interventions on process or outcome can be demonstrate (Horvath A O, Luborsky L 1993 Pg. 568)The effectiveness of the Therapeutic Alliance is also demonstrably effected by other factors. In his book the Heart and Soul of Change, miller (et al. 1999) puts forward the confidential information that what is of fundamental importance in establishing the alliance is not the persuasion, or theoretical background of the therapist, nor even how empathetic the therapist actually is to the problems of the patient (even if the criteria that one uses is how empathetic the therapist believes that they are being) but is actually the degree to which the patient believe that the therapist understands their own perceptions of reality. To quote miller It the clients theory of change not the therapists that is important.This thread of argument is taken further with Gabbards analysis (Gabbard G O et al. 1994) that the efficacy of the eventual therap eutic intervention, if measured in terms of transference interpretations, defence interpretations, and supportive interventions is ultimately dependent on factors that are therapist independent such as the strength of the patients ego, the state of readiness that the patient has reached in terms of their own self-exploration or elaboration, the current phase of the therapeutic process and even the timing in spite of appearance any particular session. Which implies that it is both dynamic and variable.If we consider the third of Justs four dimensions, that being that the therapists empathic understanding and involvement is an essential prerequisite for the formation of the Therapeutic Alliance, whence we can see that Gabbards analysis is clearly at odds with Justs. It is fair to observe that Gabbard is not alone in his assertions as Sextons slightly later and incredibly detailed assessment of the status of the Therapeutic Alliance, came to essentially the same conclusions. (Sexton H C et al. 1996).A rather more controversial view is expressed by Kernberg who was admittedly considering the phenomenon of Therapeutic Alliance in the specific context of severe personality disorder (Kernberg O F 1994) and came to the conclusion that the Therapeutic Alliance has to be initially very strong to allow the possibility of forbid transference in order for the therapist to sometimes avoid the possibility of any premature termination of therapeutic stalemates. To an extent, he vicariously supports Millers contentions by pointing out that the practical strength of the Therapeutic Alliance is largely independent of the therapists wishes if one is dealing with a patient who is angrily attacking or even overtly manipulating the frame and goals of treatment. He adds the comment that in these circumstances the strength of the Therapeutic Alliance is largely determined by the level of the patients intrinsic anxiety state. Perhaps this can be interpreted as an extension or perha ps a paraphrasing of Millers later suggestion.It therefore follows that if we are to agree or to disagree with Justs original statement, we need to consider just how we can quantify the strength of the various parameters of the Therapeutic Alliance. This is no easy topic and the literature on the subject is vast.One of the first significant and serious attempts to produce some form of measuring tool came in the form of the Luborskys Penn Helping Alliance scales (Luborsky L et al. 1983). This had a number of serious shortcomings and was modified many times in the years immediately after its publication. The Penn Helping Alliance questionnaire was an offshoot of this collaboration and this evolved further into a 19 pointedness scale. Many difficulties arose in the original tools because, to a degree they were dependent on the degree of benefit that the patient had already received from any previous attempts at therapy. A number of commentators made the suggestion that the tools, in o rder to maximise their applicability and usefulness, should be as independent as possible from the degree of benefit that the patient had already received. (Marmar C R et al. 1989).If we return to our consideration of Bordins tripartite assessment of the Therapeutic Alliance which can be considered a fundamental progenitor of Justs model, then we can cite Horvath and Greenbergs Working Alliance Inventory (Horvath H O et al. 1989) as a useful tool to measure the Therapeutic Alliance in terms of the three subsections of the Bordin definition mentioned earlier. This is perhaps the best direct justification and support of Justs hypothesis that we can find as Bordins threefold thrust of assessment is essentially the same as three of the four elements of Justs and the fourth element that Just included of the therapists empathetic understanding and involvement as being an essential prerequisite of the Therapeutic Alliance, is largely dismissed by authorities such as Gabbard and Sexton who we have cited earlier.Clearly we do not presume to make a judgement as to which authority is essentially correct as we have to observe that the evidence base to support either view is not particularly strong.To return to the original thrust of the concept of measurement, we can state that authorities have regarded Horvath and Greenbergs Working Alliance Inventory as being highly reproducible and as having high levels of interrater reliability in both the 36 item and the shorter 12 item random variable. (Horvath H O et al. 1989)A degree of vindication for Justs analysis of the Therapeutic Alliance can be found in the California psychotherapy Alliance Scales (CALPAS) , which essentially measures the strength of the therapist / patient alliance as a multidimensional construct. It uses four subscales to assess the strength of the bond namely(i) the patients capacity to work purposefully in therapy,(ii) the affective bond with the therapist,(iii) the therapists empathic understanding an d involvement(iv) the agreement between patient and therapist on the goals and tasks of treatment.Which, in essence, cover the four basic premises of Justs hypothesis. Like the other scales already referred to, the CALPAS scale utilises a 6 point Likert scale for each item.This particular scale has achieved wide acceptance in research literature with a good predictive ability which appears to be legitimate across the majority of psychotherapeutic disciplines including cognitive behavioural therapy (Fenton L R et al. 2001), psychodynamic psychotherapy (Barber J P et al. 2000) and across several other different treatment areas (Gaston L et al. 1991). It has been found to be especially useful among neurotic patients, but it does appear to be only a weak predictor of outcome with cocaine-dependent patients (Barber J P et al. 1999).In terms of the arguments set out earlier, we note that all of the scales that we have already cited have both a therapist rated and patient rated version as well as an independent observer version. If one considers the literature we can see that the patient self-reported versions tend to give better predictions of outcome than those reports that are therapist based (particularly when assessed early in treatment trajectory). This gives credence to Millers view that it is the patient s perception of the Therapeutic Alliance which is the bingle most important prediction measure of outcome in the psychotherapeutic field.Thus far in this essay we have largely considered the presence of the Therapeutic Alliance as being a comparatively static modality which is either present or not. Although we have acknowledged some views that refer to its dynamic state, we should perhaps examine this in more detail. We have referred to the evolution of the strength of the Therapeutic Alliance as therapy progresses, but we should point to the fact that a number of authorities refer to the relationship of either the variability of the fundamental stability of the Therapeutic Alliance to a number of both clinical and empirical implications. (Hatcher R L et al. 1996).As long as three decades ago Luborsky wrote about the dynamic nature of the Therapeutic Alliance which was actively responsive to the dynamic and ever-changing demands of the evolution of the various phases of therapy. (Luborsky L 1976). A further aspect of this dynamism is to be found in the writings of Bordin who, while acknowledging that the role of the therapist is for the most part one of support, noted that the role of the therapist tends to be the dominant factor at the beginning of the therapeutic relationship and this evolves into a more shared certificate of indebtedness as goals and treatment plans are both articulated and defined. He writes that it is the inevitable cycle of the Therapeutic Alliance bond being strained, ruptured and then repaired that is central to the therapeutic process. (Bordin E 1980)Writers such as Gelso and Carter (Gelso C J et al. 1994) formalised (some would say stylised) the evolution of the alliance over the therapeutic interaction as involving a weaken after an initial development, followed in successful therapy by an increase to earlier, high levels. Other authorities have taken a more idiosyncratic view, which may reflect their own personal experience rather than necessarily an informed overview. Horvath characterises the typical trajectory as an initial phase of development for the alliance, held to occur within the first five therapy sessions (and probably peaking during the third session), followed by a second, more critical phase, during which the therapist challenges maladaptive patterns, the effect of which is a weakening or rupturing of the alliance that must be repaired if therapy is to continue successfully. (Horvath A O et al. 1994). In order to provide a balanced picture of the literature, one could also cite the opinion of Greenberg who appears to have a more philanthropic outlook when he descr ibes the process of evolution of the Therapeutic Alliance in successful therapies as either rising or holding a steady value over time. (Greenberg L S 1994)In consideration of the evidence that we have assembled hence far we can state that the Therapeutic Alliance, in Justs words, is clearly a key concept. We would suggest that the evidence points to the fact that not only is it a key concept but that it is both crucial and fundamental to the whole discipline of psychotherapeutic intervention.References Barber J P, Luborsky L, Crits-Christoph P, Thase M, Weiss R, Frank A, Onken L, Gallop R 1999Therapeutic alliance as a predictor of outcome in treatment of cocaine dependence. Psychotherapy Research, 1999 9 (1) 54 73Barber J P, Connolly M B, Crits-Christoph P, Gladis L, Siqueland L 2000Alliance predicts patients outcome beyond in-treatment change in symptoms.J Consul Clin Psychol 2000 68 (6) 1027 1032Beck A T, Rush A J, Shaw B F, Emery G 1979cognitive Therapy of Depression.New York Guilford Press, 1979Bordin E S 1979The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance.Psychotherapy Theory, Research and Practice 1979 16 (3) 252 260Bordin E 1980A psychodynamic view of counseling psychology.The centering Psychologist 1980 9 62 66Fenton L R, Cecero J J, Nich C, Fankforter T L, Carroll K M 2001Perspective is everything the predictive validity working alliance instruments.Journal of Psychotherapy Practice Research 2001 10 (4) 262 268Freud S 1912The dynamics of transference.Standard Edition 1912 12 97 108Gabbard G O, Horwitz L, Allen J G, et al 1994Transference interpretation in the psychotherapy of borderline patients a high-risk, high-gain phenomenon.Harv Rev Psychiatry 1994 4 59 69Gaston L, Marmar C R, Gallagher D, Thompson L W 1991Alliance prediction of outcome beyond in-treatment symptomatic change as psychotherapy processes.Psychotherapy Research, 1991 1 (2) 104 113Gelso C J, Carter J A 1994 Components of the psy chotherapy relationship their interaction and unfolding during treatment.Journal of focal point Psychology 1994 41 296 306Greenberg L S 1994What is real in the relationship? Comment on Gelso and Carter (1994).Journal of Counselling Psychology 1994 41 307 310Greenson R R 1967The Technique and Practice of Psychoanalysis.New York International Universities Press, 1967Hatcher R L, Barends A W 1996Patients view of the alliance in psychotherapy exploratory factor analysis of three alliance measures.J Consult Clin Psychol 1996 64 1326 1336Horvath H O, Greenberg L S 1989Development and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory.J Couns Psychol 1989 36 (2) 223 233Horvath A O, Symonds B D 1991Relation between working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy a meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology 1991 38 139 149Horvath A O, Luborsky L 1993The role of the therapeutic alliance in psychotherapy.J Consult Clin Psychol 1993 61 561 573Horvath A O, Gaston L, Luborsky L 1 994The therapeutic alliance and its measures, in Psychodynamic Treatment and Research, edited by Miller L, Luborsky L, Barber J et al.New York, Basic Books, 1994, pp 247 273Kernberg O F 1994Severe Personality Disorders Psychotherapeutic Strategies.New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1994Luborsky L, Crits-Christoph P, Alexander L, Margolis M, Cohen M T 1983 both helping alliance methods for predicting outcomes of psychotherapy a counting signs versus a global rating method.Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1983 171 480 492Luborsky L 1976Helping alliance in psychotherapy, in Successful Psychotherapy, edited by Cleghhorn JL. New York Brunner / Mazel, 1976, pp 92116Marmar C R, Gaston L, Gallagher D, Thompson L W 1989Towards the validation of the California Therapeutic Alliance evaluate System. Psychological AssessmentJ Consul Clin Psychol 1989 1 46 52Martin D J, Garske J P, Davis M K 2000Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables a meta-analytic review.J Consulting and Clin Psych 2000 68 438 450Miller E A et al. 1999The Heart and Soul of ChangeAPA Detroit 1999Rogers C R 1965Client-Centered Therapy.Boston Houghton Mifflin, 1965Sexton H C, Hembrek K, Kvarme G 1996The interaction of the alliance and therapy microprocess a sequential analysis.J Consult Clin Psychol 1996 64 471 480Zetzel E R 1956Current concepts of transference.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1956 53 16 1811/01/07 Word count 3,493 PDG