Cited by 129Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchCounseling Practices and Supervision

Psychotherapists' self-reports of their interpersonal functioning and difficulties in practice as predictors of patient outcome

Nissen-Lie, Helene A., Monsen, Jon Trygve, Ulleberg, Pål, Rønnestad, Michael Helge·2013·Psychotherapy Research

Abstract

The need for psychotherapy research to understand the therapist effect has been emphasized in several studies. In a large naturalistic study (255 patients, 70 therapists), this topic was addressed using therapists' self-assessed difficulties in practice and interpersonal functioning in therapeutic work as predictors of patient outcome in three conventional outcome measures. Three-level growth curve analyses were employed to assess whether the therapist characteristics, measured by the Development of Psychotherapists Common Core Questionnaire (Orlinsky & Rønnestad, 2005), predicted the level of and change in patient symptom distress (SCL-90R), interpersonal problems (IIP-64), and observer-rated global functioning (GAF). Preliminary estimates of therapist effects in patient change indicated that 4% of change in general symptom distress (GSI), almost 21% of change in IIP global scores, and 28% of growth in GAF could be attributed to therapist differences. The results also demonstrated that certain therapist self-perceptions were clearly related to patient outcome. For example, therapists' scores on a type of difficulty in practice called "Professional self-doubt" (PSD) (denoting doubt about one's professional efficacy) were positively associated with change in IIP global scores. It is suggested that therapists' self-reported functioning can be of value in understanding how individual therapists contribute to therapeutic change although their influence is not necessarily exerted in expected directions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10503307.2012.735775

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 99 · Cited by 129

Authors
Nissen-Lie, H. A., Monsen, J. T., Ulleberg, P., & Rønnestad, M. H.
Affiliations
University of Oslo (NO)
Venue
Psychotherapy Research
Published
2013-01
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
86-104
ISSN
  • 1050-3307 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4381
OpenAlex
W2036068711
Cited by
129
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3
FWCI
6.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychotherapy Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Universitetet i Bergen
  • Universitetet i Oslo
  • Norges Forskningsråd
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
Keywords
therapist effects, patient outcomes, professional self-doubt, therapist self-assessment, interpersonal problems, symptom distress, global functioning
MeSH terms
Workforce, Adult, Mental Disorders, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Predictive Value of Tests, Professional-Patient Relations, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotherapy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Severity of Illness Index, Treatment Outcome, Self Report

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