The Collaborative Interactions Scale (CIS; Colli & Lingiardi, 2009) is a transcript-based method for the assessment of therapeutic alliance ruptures and resolutions in psychotherapy. Although previews researches showed a good validity and reliability of the scale further improvement needs to be made. The first aim of this study is to present a revised version of the CIS. The most important changes are: faster scoring, reduction of scoring categories and introduction of new and more specific markers to rate patient collaboration. The second aim is to present data about validity and reliability. The sample consists of 80 psychotherapy sessions of different types of theoretical orientations. Six raters scored independently and randomly both the CIS and the new revised form. Results suggested that inter rater reliability was higher with the CIS revised form, the scoring time was shorter and convergent validity with CIS was good. Finally we will discuss clinical and empirical implications of the findings.
A revised version of the Collaborative Interactions Scale: reliability and convergent validity / Condino, V.; Gentile, D.; Lingiardi, Vittorio; Colli, A.. - (2014), pp. 48-48. (Intervento presentato al convegno 45th International Annual Meeting tenutosi a Copenhagen, Denmark nel June 25-28, 2014).
A revised version of the Collaborative Interactions Scale: reliability and convergent validity
D. Gentile;LINGIARDI, Vittorio;
2014
Abstract
The Collaborative Interactions Scale (CIS; Colli & Lingiardi, 2009) is a transcript-based method for the assessment of therapeutic alliance ruptures and resolutions in psychotherapy. Although previews researches showed a good validity and reliability of the scale further improvement needs to be made. The first aim of this study is to present a revised version of the CIS. The most important changes are: faster scoring, reduction of scoring categories and introduction of new and more specific markers to rate patient collaboration. The second aim is to present data about validity and reliability. The sample consists of 80 psychotherapy sessions of different types of theoretical orientations. Six raters scored independently and randomly both the CIS and the new revised form. Results suggested that inter rater reliability was higher with the CIS revised form, the scoring time was shorter and convergent validity with CIS was good. Finally we will discuss clinical and empirical implications of the findings.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
