CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsGambling Behavior and TreatmentsCounseling Practices and Supervision

An exploration of the therapeutic relationship and counselling outcomes in a problem gambling counselling service

Smith, Serena A, Thomas, Shane A, Jackson, Alun C·2004·Journal of Social Work Practice
DOI 10.1080/0265053042000180581
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between a number of counselling process variables thought to influence counselling outcomes in a sample of 150 clients undertaking short‐term counselling in the state‐wide government funded Gambler's Help problem gambling counselling services in Victoria, Australia. Factors measured included psychosocial well‐being of clients prior to and after counselling, client readiness to change, self‐reported gambling activity levels before and after counselling, self‐assessment of current gambling behaviour, strength of therapeutic alliance, self‐reported counselling outcomes achieved in the area of symptoms, life matters, and related problems and a measure of client satisfaction with the service. The therapeutic alliance was found to have the strongest predictive power with respect to the level of problem resolution achieved by clients across all but one of the problem areas. The implications of these findings for clinical social work practice and education of practitioners are noted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0265053042000180581

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • A limited number of studies, not eligible for inclusion in this review due to timing or type of outcomes assessed, have examined the role of the therapeutic relationship and found that client-rated therapeutic alliance was predictive of gambling outcomes, but therapist-rated therapeutic alliance was not.

    “A limited number of studies, not eligible for inclusion in this review due to timing or type of outcomes assessed, however, have examined the role of the therapeutic relationship and found that client-rated therapeutic alliance was predictive of gambling outcomes (Dowling & Cosic, 2011;Smith, Thomas, & Jackson, 2004), but therapist-rated therapeutic alliance was not (Dowling & Cosic, 2011).”

    From Predictors of outcomes of psychological treatments for disordered gambling: A systematic review (2016) · cites this paper as Smith, Thomas, & Jackson, 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Smith, S. A., Thomas, S. A., & Jackson, A. C.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Social Work Practice
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2004-03
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
99-112
ISSN
  • 0265-0533 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-3885
DOI
10.1080/0265053042000180581
OpenAlex
W2064353898
Cited by
22
References
22
Citations by year
2018: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Social Work Practice (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
Keywords
problem gambling, counseling outcomes, therapeutic relationship, psychosocial well-being, client satisfaction, clinical social work

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