ABSTRACT

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.

 抽象的

团体治疗中关系破裂的识别以及团体领导者的修复工作是从基于测量的护理（MBC）的角度来解决的。一些 MBC 系统现在被认为是循证治疗，这些系统通常使用结果和关系测量的自我报告评估。在从个体治疗的角度奠定了联盟破裂和修复的简要基础之后，考虑了在团体治疗文献中发现的多种治疗关系和结构中应用联盟和修复的复杂性。团体问卷（GQ）是一种根据经验得出的测量方法，旨在捕捉团体治疗中的多种关系结构（成员-成员、成员-领导者和成员-群体）和构建（联盟、凝聚力、气氛和同理心）。考虑了 GQ 与联盟破裂和修复措施之间的相似性和差异，然后使用算法在三个 GQ 分量表（积极联系、积极工作和消极关系）的团体治疗中识别破裂和修复。 MBC 临床报告用于说明如何从团体和个人成员的角度识别破裂，以及支持修复干预措施的信息。最后，结合临床观察考虑了使用 MBC 方法的临床和经验原因。