Cited by 113Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

The therapeutic alliance in treatment of traumatized youths: Relation to outcome in a randomized clinical trial.

Ormhaug, Silje M., Jensen, Tine K., Wentzel-Larsen, Tore, Shirk, Stephen R.·2014·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We examined the contribution of alliance to the outcome of therapy with traumatized youths across two different treatment conditions (trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy [TF-CBT] and therapy as usual [TAU]). METHOD: Participants were 156 youths (M age = 15.1 years, range = 10-18; 79.5% girls), randomly assigned to TF-CBT or TAU. Symptoms were assessed pretreatment, midtreatment (Session 6), and posttreatment (Session 15). Alliance was assessed after Sessions 1 and 6, using the Therapeutic Alliance Scale for Children-Revised (TASC-R). RESULTS: Alliance scores were comparable across treatment conditions, but TF-CBT participants had significantly lower posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) posttreatment (d = 0.51). Hierarchical regression analyses showed that there were no significant alliance effects in models without an Alliance × Treatment Group interaction: Alliance ratings were significant predictors of reduction in PTSS (Est. = -0.53, p = .003, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.87 to -0.18) and additional outcomes measured in TF-CBT but not in TAU (PTSS posttreatment: Est. = 0.01, p = .647, 95% CI = -0.29 to 0.47). CONCLUSION: This study was the first to investigate the contribution of alliance to outcome among adolescents with posttraumatic symptoms, treated with TF-CBT or TAU. Our findings indicated that there was an important interaction between alliance and therapeutic approach, as alliance predicted outcome in TF-CBT, but not in the nonspecific treatment condition. A positive working relationship appeared to be especially important in the context of this evidence-based treatment, which requires youth involvement in specific therapy tasks. Further, findings showed that use of a manual did not compromise alliance formation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0033884

Cites

180 of 180 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ormhaug, S. M., Jensen, T. K., Wentzel-Larsen, T., & Shirk, S. R.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies (NO)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • University of Denver (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2014
Volume
82
Issue
1
Pages
52-64
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2113548391
Cited by
113
References
177
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3
FWCI
8.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
therapeutic relationship, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, posttraumatic stress symptoms, treatment outcomes, nonspecific therapy, manualized treatment, workplace relationships
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Professional-Patient Relations, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review