Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207284.2020.1844010 | DOI Listing |