Cited by 162Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Reliability Generalization of Working Alliance Inventory Scale Scores

Hanson, William E., Curry, Kyle T., Bandalos, Deborah L.·2002·Educational and Psychological Measurement

Abstract

Reliability generalization (RG) was used to study five versions of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI), including scores from 12 different scales. Sixty-seven internal consistency estimates, six interrater reliability estimates, and four study characteristics were analyzed. In general, reliability estimates of WAI scale scores appear to be robust. Mean reliability estimates ranged, in this sample of studies, from .79 to .97, with a modal estimate of .92. Variability in reliability estimates was, based on simple bivariate correlations, associated with client and therapist sample size for WAI total scores (observer version). Implications for measuring alliance using the WAI and conducting future RG studies on psychotherapy process measures are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0013164402062004008

Cites

71 of 71 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?

  • The Working Alliance Inventory-Short Form Revised has high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.91) and high test-retest reliability (0.93, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97).

    “The WAI-SR has been shown to have high internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.91 [20, 38] and high reliability, with test-retest reliability of 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.97) [18].”
  • The WAI-SR has construct validity, with a correlation of 0.80 with the California Psychotherapy Alliance Scale and a correlation of 0.74 with the Helping Alliance Questionnaire.

    “in terms of its construct validity, the WAI-SR exhibits high correlations with other measures of the therapeutic alliance, such as a correlation of 0.80 with the california psychotherapy alliance scale and a correlation of 0.74 with the helping alliance questionnaire (44).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hanson, W. E., Curry, K. T., & Bandalos, D. L.
Affiliations
University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
Corresponding author
Hanson, William E.
Venue
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Published
2002-08
Volume
62
Issue
4
Pages
659-673
ISSN
  • 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3888
OpenAlex
W2122193551
Cited by
161
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational and Psychological Measurement (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
Working Alliance Inventory, therapeutic relationship, reliability generalization, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, scale scores, observer ratings

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