Cited by 36Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Adaption and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory for General Practice: qualitative review and cross-sectional surveys

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Relational aspects of primary care are important, but we have no standard measure for assessment. The 'working alliance' incorporates elements of the therapeutic relationship, shared decision-making, goal setting and communication skills. The Working Alliance Inventory (short form) (WAI-SF) has been used in adult psychology, and a high score on the survey is associated with improved outcomes for clients. OBJECTIVE: To adapt the WAI-SF for use between GPs and patients and to test its concurrent validity with measures of shared decision-making and the doctor-patient relationship and discriminant validity with measures of social desirability. METHODS: Two rounds of online survey feedback from 55 GPs and 47 patients were used to adapt the WAI-SF-the WAI-GP. The tool was then completed by 142 patients in waiting rooms after seeing their GP and by 16 GPs at the end of their session. Concurrent validity with measures of shared decision-making and patient-doctor depth of relationship was determined using Spearman Rho correlations. Patients also completed two social desirability surveys, and discriminant validity with WAI-GP was assessed. RESULTS: Following feedback, the survey was re-worded to remove phrases that were perceived as judgmental or irrelevant. The patient measure of the WAI-GP was strongly correlated with Dyadic OPTION (rho = 0.705, P = 0.0001) and Patient-Doctor Depth of Relationship scale (rho = 0.591, P = 0.0001) and not with measures of social desirability. CONCLUSION: The psychometric properties of the WAI-GP support its use for measuring GP-patient alliance. Possibilities for use include assessing the influence of therapeutic alliance on the effectiveness of interventions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/cmy113

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • WAI-SF scores in the current study were comparable to those typically reported in previous treatment studies.

    “Scores on the WAI-SF were comparable to those typically reported in previous treatment studies (for a review, see Sturgiss et al., 2019).”

    From Behavioral Experiments for Intolerance of Uncertainty: A Randomized Clinical Trial for Adults With Generalized Anxiety Disorder (2022) · cites this paper as Sturgiss et al., 2019

    The Introduction mentions previous medical uses of the WAI-SF, and the Results (Table 5) report scores for this paper’s adapted WAI-GP. Neither passage gives typical WAI-SF scores from previous treatment studies or compares those scores with the citing study’s scores. Searched for typical scores and comparisons with previous treatment studies. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Greenhalgh, 2010, Measuring Quality in the Therapeutic Relationship. An Inquiry into the Quality of General Practice in England
  2. Chan, 2008, The Working Alliance as a Conceptual Framework of Patient-Centredness: The Development of the Primary Care Working Alliance Inventory
  3. Britt, 2016, General Practice Activity in Australia 2015–16
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016, Patient Experiences in Australia: Summary of Findings, 2015–16

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sturgiss, E. A., Rieger, E., Haesler, E., Ridd, M. J., Douglas, K., & Galvin, S. L.
Affiliations
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Mountain Area Health Education Center (US)
Corresponding author
Sturgiss, Elizabeth A
Venue
Family Practice
Published
2018-11-26
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
516-522
ISSN
  • 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2229
OpenAlex
W2902698726
Cited by
36
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3
FWCI
0.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Family Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • La Trobe University
Funders
  • Chris Silagy Research Scholarship
  • National Institute for Health Research (PDF-2014-07-013)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
Working Alliance Inventory, therapeutic relationship, physician-patient relationship, general practice, shared decision-making, scale adaptation, psychometric validation, concurrent validity, discriminant validity, social desirability, primary care
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Shared, Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Primary Health Care, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Patient Satisfaction, Internet

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