Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T05:30:02.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceived Group Climate as a Predictor of Long-Term Outcome in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Cognitive-Behavioural Group Therapy for Patients with Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2009

Truls Ryum ,
Roger Hagen ,
Hans M. Nordahl ,
Patrick A. Vogel  and
Tore C. Stiles
Truls Ryum*
Affiliation:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Roger Hagen
Affiliation:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Hans M. Nordahl
Affiliation:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Patrick A. Vogel
Affiliation:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Tore C. Stiles
Affiliation:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
*
Reprint requests to Truls Ryum, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Psychology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway. E-mail: truls.ryum@svt.ntnu.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: Research on group therapy indicates that various dimensions of the helpful relationship qualities (cohesion, climate, empathy, alliance) are associated with outcome. However, the use of a wide variety of empirical scales makes comparisons between studies as well as generalizations somewhat difficult. Although a generic, trans-theoretical measure such as the Group Climate Questionnaire-Short Form (GCQ-S; MacKenzie, 1983) is available and applicable to most treatment conditions, it has never been tested with cognitive-behavioural group therapy. Aims: To investigate perceived dimensions of group climate (engagement, avoidance and conflict) as predictors of long-term (1 year) follow-up in a manualized, structured time-limited cognitive-behavioural group therapy (CBGT) for out-patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders. Methods: Data from 27 patients were analysed using hierarchical multiple regression analyses. Outcome measures used were general symptomatic complaints (SCL-90-R), interpersonal problems (IIP-64), specific mood- and anxiety symptoms (BDI; BAI) and early maladaptive schemas (YSQ). After controlling for scores on the relevant dependent variables at both intake and treatment termination, dimensions of group climate measured close to termination were entered as predictors in separate analyses. Results: Higher ratings of engagement were associated with reduced scores on all outcome measures at follow-up, except for anxiety symptoms (BAI). Higher ratings of avoidance were associated with lower anxiety symptoms at follow up, whereas ratings of conflict were unrelated to all follow-up scores. Conclusions: The results provide partial support for the use of the GCQ-S as a predictor of long-term follow-up in CBGT, and highlights perceived engagement as the most important dimension. Clinical implications are discussed.

Keywords

Group climatelong-term outcomecognitive-behavioural group therapy
Type
Research Article
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 37 , Issue 5 , October 2009 , pp. 497 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S. and Pincus, A. L. (1990). Construction of circumplex scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 521–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baldwin, S. A., Wampold, B. E. and Imel, Z. E. (2007). Untangling the alliance-outcome correlation: exploring the relative importance of therapist and patient variability in the alliance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 842–852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barber, J. P., Connolly, M. B., Crits-Christoph, P., Gladis, L. and Siqueland, L. (2000). Alliance predicts patients' outcome beyond in-treatment change in symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1027–1032.Google Scholar
Bech, P., Allerup, P., Maier, W., Albus, M., Lavori, P. and Ayuso, J. L. (1992). The Hamilton scales and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-90): a cross-national validity study in patients with panic disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 206–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G. and Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 893–897.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Harrison, R. P. and Emery, G. (1983). Development of the Sociotropy-Autonomy Scale: a measure of personality factors in psychopathology. Manuscript. Center for Cognitive Therapy, University of Pennsylvania Medical School, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F. and Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive Theory of Depression. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Beck, A. T. and Steer, R. A. (1993). Beck Anxiety Inventory Manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A. and Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 771–00.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednar, R. L. and Kaul, T. J. (1994). Experiential group research: can the canon fire? In Bergin, A. E. and Garfield, S. L. (Eds.), Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (4th ed., pp. 631–663). New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Braaten, L. J. (1989). Predicting positive goal attainment and symptom reduction from early group climate dimensions. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 39, 377–387.Google Scholar
Budman, S. H., Soldz, S., Demby, A., Feldstein, M., Springer, T. and Davis, M. S. (1989). Cohesion, alliance and outcome in group psychotherapy. Psychiatry, 52, 339–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burlingame, G. M., Fuhriman, A. and Johnson, J. E. (2002). Cohesion in group psychotherapy. In Norcross, J. C. (Ed.), Psychotherapy Relationships That Work: therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients (pp. 71–87). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burlingame, G. M., MacKenzie, K. R. and Strauss, B. (2004). Small-group treatment: evidence for effectiveness and mechanisms of change. In Lambert, M. J. (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (5th ed., pp. 647–696). New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Castonguay, L. G., Pincus, A. L., Agras, W. S. and Hines, C. E. (1998). The role of emotion in group cognitive-behavioral therapy for binge eating disorder: when things have to feel worse before they get better. Psychotherapy Research, 8, 225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derogatis, L. (1983). SCL-90-R – Administration, Scoring and Procedures Manual for the Revised Version and Other Instruments of the Psychopathology Rating Scale Series. Towson, MD. Clinical Psychometric Research.Google Scholar
DeRubeis, R. J. and Feeley, M. (1990). Determinants of change in cognitive therapy for depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: from “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M. and Williams, J. B. W. (1995). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders – patient edition (SCID I/P, Version 2.0). Biometrics Research Department.Google Scholar
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., Williams, J. B. W. and Benjamin, L. (1994). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II – personality. Biometrics Research Department.Google Scholar
Free, M. L. (1999). Cognitive Therapy in Groups: guidelines and resources for practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Gillaspy, J. A., Wright, A. R., Campbell, C., Stokes, S. and Adinoff, B. (2002). Group alliance and cohesion as predictors of drug and alcohol abuse treatment outcomes. Psychotherapy Research, 12, 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, R., Nordahl, H. M., Kristiansen, L. and Morken, G. (2005). A randomized trial of cognitive group therapy vs. waiting list for patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders: effects of cognitive group therapy after treatment and six and 12 months follow up. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 33, 33–44.Google Scholar
Hand, I., Lamontagne, Y. and Marks, I. M. (1974). Group exposure (flooding) in vivo for agoraphobics. British Journal of Psychiatry, 124, 588–602.Google Scholar
Hatcher, R. L. and Barends, A. W. (2006). How a return to theory could help alliance research. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 43, 292–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hornsey, M. J., Dwyer, L. and Oei, T. P. S. (2007). Beyond cohesiveness: reconceptualizing the link between group processes and outcomes in group psychotherapy. Small Group Research, 38, 567–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, A. O. and Symonds, B. D. (1991). Relation between working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: a meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureño, G. and Villaseñor, V. S. (1988). Inventory of interpersonal problems: psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 885–892.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. E., Burlingame, G. M., Olsen, J. A., Davies, D. R. and Gleave, R. L. (2005). Group climate, cohesion, alliance, and empathy in group psychotherapy: multilevel structural equation models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 310–321.Google Scholar
Joyce, A. S., Piper, W. E. and Ogrodniczuk, J. S. (2007). Therapeutic alliance and cohesion variables as predictors of outcome in short-term group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 57, 269–296.Google Scholar
Kivilighan, D. M. and Goldfine, D. C. (1991). Endorsement of therapeutic factors as a function of stage of group development and participant interpersonal attitudes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kivlighan, D. M. and Lilly, R. L. (1997). Developmental changes in group climate as they relate to therapeutic gain. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 208–221.Google Scholar
Kivlighan, D. M. and Tarrant, J. M. (2001). Does group climate mediate the group leadership-group member outcome relationship? A test of Yalom's hypotheses about leadership priorities. Group dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 5, 220–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, A., Barber, J. P. and Sandahl, C. (2008). Alliance to the group-as-a-whole as predictor of outcome in psychodynamic group therapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 58, 163–184.Google Scholar
Lorentzen, S., Sexton, H. C. and Høglend, P. (2004). Therapeutic alliance, cohesion and outcome in a long-term analytic group: a preliminary study. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 58, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, K. R. (1983). The clinical application of group measure. In Dies, R. R. and MacKenzie, K. R. (Eds.), Advances in Group Psychotherapy: integrating research and practice (pp. 159–170). New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, K. R. (2000). The alliance in time-limited group psychotherapy. In Safran, J. D. and Muran, J. C. (Eds.), The Therapeutic Alliance in Brief Psychotherapy (pp. 193–215). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, K. R. and Tschuschke, V. (1993). Relatedness, group work, and outcome in long-term inpatient psychotherapy groups. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 2, 147–156.Google Scholar
Marmar, C. R., Gaston, L., Gallagher, D. and Thompson, L. W. (1989). Alliance and outcome in late-life depression. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 8, 464–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P. and Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 438–450.Google Scholar
Marziali, E., Munroe-Blum, H. and McCleary, L. (1997). The contribution of group cohesion and group alliance to the outcome of group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 47, 475–497.Google Scholar
Norton, P. J., Hayes, S. A. and Springer, J. R. (2008). Transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioral group therapy for anxiety: outcome and process. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 3, 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogrodniczuk, J. S. and Piper, W. E. (2003). The effect of group climate on outcome in two forms of short-term group therapy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safran, J. D. and Muran, J. C. (2000). Negotiating the Therapeutic Alliance: a relational treatment guide. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Salvio, M. A., Beutler, L. E., Wood, J. M. and Engle, D. (1992). The strength of the therapeutic alliance in three treatments for depression. Psychotherapy Research, 2, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, N. B., Joiner, T. E., Young, J. E. and Telch, M. J. (1995). The Schema Questionnaire: Investigation of psychometric properties and the hierarchical structure of a measure of maladaptive schemas. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 295–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinhoven, P., Giesen-Bloo, J., van Dyck, R., Kooiman, K. and Arntz, A. (2007). The therapeutic alliance in schema-focused therapy and transference-focused psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 104–115.Google Scholar
Stockton, R., Rhode, R. I. and Haughey, J. (1992). The effects of structured group exercises on cohesion, engagement, avoidance, and conflict. Small Group Research, 23, 155–168.Google Scholar
Taft, C. T., Murphy, C. M., King, D. W., Musser, P. H. and DeDeyn, J. M. (2003). Process and treatment adherence factors in group cognitive-behavioral therapy for partner violent men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 812–820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taube-Schiff, M., Suvak, M. K., Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J. and McCabe, R. E. (2007). Group cohesion in cognitive behavioral group therapy for social phobia. Behavior Research and Therapy, 45, 687–698.Google Scholar
Tschuschke, V. and Dies, R. R. (1994). Intensive analysis of therapeutic factors and outcome in long-term inpatient groups. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 44, 185–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tschuschke, V. and Greene, L. R. (2002). Group therapists' training: what predicts learning? International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 52, 463–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vallis, T. M., Shaw, B. F. and Dobson, K. S. (1986). The cognitive therapy scale: psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 381–385.Google Scholar
van Andel, P., Erdman, R. A. M., Karsdorp, P. A., Appels, A. and Trijsburg, R. W. (2003). Group cohesion and working alliance: prediction of treatment outcome in cardiac patients receiving cognitive behavioral group psychotherapy. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 72, 141–149.Google Scholar
Woody, S. R. and Adessky, R. S. (2002). Therapeutic alliance, group cohesion, and homework compliance during cognitive-behavioral group treatment of social phobia. Behavior Therapy, 33, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalom, I. D. and Leszcz, M. (2005). The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy (5th ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Young, J. E. (1994). Young Shema Questionnaire. In J. E. Young, Cognitive Therapy for Personality Disorders: a schema focused approach. Sarasota: Professional Resources Press.Google Scholar
Young, J. E. and Beck, A. T. (1980). Cognitive Therapy Scale: rating manual. Unpublished manuscript. Bala Cynwyd, PA: Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research.Google Scholar
Zettle, R. D., Halfich, J. L. and Reynolds, R. A. (1992). Response to cognitive therapy as a function of treatment format and client personality dimensions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 787–797.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.