Cited by 14Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

The Therapeutic Alliance Predicts Outcomes of Cognitive Behavior Therapy but Not of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Depressive Symptoms

Snippe, Evelien, Fleer, Joke, Tovote, K. Annika, Sanderman, Robbert, Emmelkamp, Paul M.G., Schroevers, Maya J.·2015·Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics

Abstract

Meta-analyses have indicated a consistent correlation between the therapeutic alliance and treatment outcomes across various psychological treatments and patient populations, including treatments for depression. However, few studies have directly compared two active treatments with respect to the alliance-outcome association. A recent randomized trial demonstrated that the alliance was more strongly related to depressive symptom improvement in the cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy (which focuses more on enhancing collaborative working relationships) than in brief supportive psychotherapy for depression. This result suggests that the extent to which aspects of the therapeutic alliance (i.e. mutual agreement on therapeutic goals, mutual agreement on tasks, and the bond between the patient and therapist) are central to a treatment might affect the predictive value of the alliance.

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 · 10.1159/000379755

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Snippe, E., Fleer, J., Tovote, K. A., Sanderman, R., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., & Schroevers, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • King Abdulaziz University (SA)
Corresponding author
Schroevers, Maya J.
Venue
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2015
Volume
84
Issue
5
Pages
314-315
ISSN
  • 0033-3190 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0348
OpenAlex
W1551758683
Cited by
14
References
9
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
therapeutic relationship, cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, depression, depressive symptoms, treatment outcome prediction
MeSH terms
Depression, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Professional-Patient Relations, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Mindfulness

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