Search

Objective: Over the last 3 decades, group treatment researchers have become increasingly knowledgeable of the impact of within-group dependency on analyses of group treatment data and of mutual influence processes that occur within therapy groups. Despite these advancements, there remains a lack of consensus on the magnitude of mutual influence, or group effects, in group treatment research. As such, this study sought to estimate the size of group effects on members' posttreatment outcomes by meta-analyzing the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) in group treatment research. In addition, we tested several moderators of the ICC, including outcome type, outcome reactivity, outcome specificity, group format, treatment length, and group size., Method: Using robust variance estimations, we meta-analyzed 169 effect sizes from 37 group treatment studies., Results: Findings indicated an average ICC of 0.06. Group size, group format, treatment length, outcome specificity, and outcome type did not significantly moderate the ICC; however, we did find evidence to suggest that the ICC varies as a function of outcome reactivity, with observer-rated outcome measures resulting in the largest ICC., Conclusion: These findings suggest that interdependence in group treatment research is an important concept both theoretically and statistically. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Experienced leaders of psychotherapy groups are surprisingly inaccurate in their judgments about their members' perceptions of positive bonding relationships with the leader and other group members. The practical implication is worrisome: the lower the leader's degree of accuracy, the worse the member therapeutic outcomes tend to be. A promising approach to improving leaders' appraisals of their members' perceptions of positive bonding relationships is to provide them, after each session, feedback about their own and their members' bonding relationship perceptions. Profiling trajectories of leaders' and members' perceptions over time yields rich "stories" of relationship development, that if strategically packaged into brief, concise, and vivid reports, and delivered as a formal "group member feedback" intervention, would direct leaders' attention to those emerging, but easily overlooked, countertherapeutic relationships, requiring immediate, well-informed targeted interventions. To increase the utility of such reports, training leaders use intuitively appealing, but structured heuristics ("interpersonal-fit-with-the-group" and "intrapersonal-split-relationships"), accelerate leaders' recognition of patterns in perceptions as they change over time, and free up their cognitive resources for determining whether to intervene into the group process at the appropriate level: intraindividual, interpersonal, or group-as-a-whole. To illustrate the use of these heuristics, we present two hypothetical cases, with visual displays of congruent and discrepant perceptions of bonding relationship perceptions between members over time, and make tentative recommendations about where and when leaders might intervene to achieve optimal impact. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).)

Relationship education programs (REPs) are an effective way to enhance relationship communication, prevent relational distress, and increase relationship quality. Most REPs are delivered in a group format; however, there is little known about the influence of group processes on outcomes for these programs, such as group members' attendance. Therefore, the current study applied a dispersion-consensus model to test the impact of attendance at the member and group levels on group members' REP outcomes. In a sample of 558 lower income, primarily African American participants, we examined whether individual and group attendance rates influenced posttreatment communication patterns and relationship quality. Results indicated that an individual group member's attendance was significantly and positively related to their posttreatment relationship quality, although this relationship is complex. Specifically, this relationship was stronger in groups with higher levels of attendance as well as groups with more attendance variability. In addition, results indicated that group members reported better posttreatment relationship quality in groups with less variability in members' attendance. However, we found a significant interaction between attendance consensus and variability, and an individual group member's posttreatment relationship quality, suggesting that group members report higher levels of relationship quality in groups where the attendance of the group as a whole is lower yet more consistent. No significant relationships were found for group member's posttreatment communication patterns. Our findings suggest that the rate and variability in the group's attendance, as well as an individual group member's own attendance significantly impacts their posttreatment relationship quality in complex ways. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).)

Groups are more effective when positive bonds are established and interpersonal conflicts resolved in early sessions and work is accomplished in later sessions. Previous research has provided mixed support for this group development model. We performed a test of this theoretical perspective using group members' (actors) and aggregated group members' (partners) perceptions of positive bonding, positive working, and negative group relationships measured early and late in interpersonal growth groups. Participants were 325 Italian graduate students randomly (within semester) assigned to 1 of 16 interpersonal growth groups. Groups met for 9 weeks with experienced psychologists using Yalom and Leszcz's (2005) interpersonal process model. Outcome was assessed pre- and posttreatment using the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, and group relationships were measured at Sessions 3 and 6 using the Group Questionnaire. As hypothesized, early measures of positive bonding and late measures of positive working, for both actors and partners, were positively related to improved interpersonal problems. Also as hypothesized, late measures of positive bonding and early measures of positive working, for both actors and partners, were negatively related to improved interpersonal problems. We also found that early actor and partner positive bonding and negative relationships interacted to predict changes in interpersonal problems. The findings are consistent with group development theory and suggest that group therapists focus on group-as-a-whole positive bonding relationships in early group sessions and on group-as-a-whole positive working relationships in later group sessions. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).)

California Psychotherapy Alliance Scale-Group (CALPAS-G) data were collected from 1,138 group sessions attended by 248 group members in 16 counseling groups. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to derive between-groups, between-member, and between-session variance components and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the 12 CALPAS-G items. Using Ledermann and Kenny's (2012) descriptions of variable types, we examined differences in between-groups variance for the 6 CALPAS-G items classified as "Individual" items and the 6 CALPAS-G items classified as "Group" items. A Related-Samples Wilcoxon's Signed Ranked Test showed that the ICCs for the Group items were significantly larger than the ICCs for the Individual items. The results show the importance of how items are worded. If researchers want to accurately examine the between-groups component of the group therapy relationship they should develop measures that ask clients to describe their perceptions of the group, not the members own experience of the group., (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.)

A time-lagged design was used to examine how the perceptions of alliance to the group as a whole by the other group members at an earlier point in the group were related to an individual group member's perceptions of alliance to the group as a whole at a later point in the group. We also examined how treatment outcome moderated this relationship. Seventy-three patients diagnosed as overweight or obese participating in 10 short-term therapy groups provided data for analyses. Group members completed measures of cohesion to the group and alliance to the group as a whole at the third, sixth, and last session of 12-session groups as well as pre- and posttest ratings on Obesity-Related Well-Being and the Outcome Questionnaire-45. As hypothesized, earlier ratings of alliance to the group as a whole by the other group members were related to later ratings of alliance to the group as a whole by the group member. Also as hypothesized, when group members had a better outcome, there was a significant positive relationship between perceptions of alliance to the group as a whole by the other group members at an earlier point in the group and an individual group member's perceptions of alliance to the group as a whole at a later point in time. When members had a worse outcome, there was no relationship between perceptions of alliance to the group as a whole by the other group members at an earlier point in the group and an individual group member's perceptions of alliance to the group as a whole at a later point in the group., ((PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).)

We review the articles by Bakali, Wilberg, Klungsøyr, and Lorentzen (this issue) and Bonsaksen, Borge, and Hoffart (this issue) that examine different aspects of group Climate using the Group Climate Questionnaire. Both articles build on the previous group climate literature and both provide important new insights into the relationship between individual group members' perceptions of group climate and their treatment outcome (Bonsaksen et al., 2013) and the development of group climate across time. Our comments focus on how these two areas of research can be extended. Specifically, we recommend that group development researchers use new statistical techniques that describe patterns in how group climate changes across time. In addition, we encourage researchers examining the relationship between group climate and outcome to use the Actor Partner Interdependence Model to include other groups members' perceptions of group climate as a predictor of an individual group member's treatment outcome.

The effectiveness of group psychotherapy has been empirically studied and supported over several decades; however, there remains much to understand regarding the specific factors contributing to effective group psychotherapy. The current study uses Kashy and Kenny's (2000) actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) to examine the relationship between an individual group member's outcome and the outcomes of the other group members. This is the first study to examine the effects of the outcomes of other therapy group members on those of individual members. Specifically, we examined the relationship between an individual group member's presymptom score, the aggregated presymptom scores of the other group members, and the aggregated pre- to postsymptom change of the other group members on an individual group member's pre- to postsymptom change. We analyzed the change in pre-post posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms of 105 women in 16 trauma-informed groups in a women's correctional facility. As hypothesized, an individual's presymptom measure (actor effect) and the aggregated presymptom measures of the other group members (partner effect) were positively related to the individual's change in PTSD symptoms. Contrary to our hypothesis, the aggregated pre-post change in PTSD symptom measures of the other group members (partner effect) was negatively associated with the pre-post change in PTSD symptom measures of an individual group member. Social comparison theory is discussed as an explanation for why a group member would report lowered amounts of change when in a group with others who are reporting a higher amount of change. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

There is a lack of research examining group members' attachment styles and group climate perceptions in the context of the attachment styles and group climate perceptions of the other group members. In the current study, the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) was used to examine the relationships among (a) a group member's attachment pattern, (b) the aggregated attachment patterns of the other group members, (c) a group member's perceptions of the group's climate, and (d) the aggregated group climate perceptions of the other group members. One hundred ten Italian graduate students in six 10-session interpersonal growth groups were studied. Group members filled out the Attachment Style Questionnaire prior to group participation and the Group Climate Questionnaire after the 3rd group session. Contrary to the hypotheses, a group member's attachment pattern (anxiety and avoidance) was unrelated to her or his perceptions of group climate, and only group member attachment anxiety was positively related to the other group members' perceptions of conflict in the group's climate. There was, however, strong support for the hypotheses involving the aggregate attachment of the other group members and group climate perceptions. As hypothesized, aggregated perceptions of attachment anxiety and avoidance were positively related to a member's perception of group conflict and aggregated perceptions of attachment anxiety and avoidance were negatively related to a member's perception of group engagement. Both aggregated attachment anxiety and avoidance were related in the expected directions to aggregated perception of group climate. Finally, as hypothesized, a group member's perception of group climate was positively related to the aggregated climate perceptions of the other group members. The findings suggest that the APIM is a useful approach for examining group process variables in the group counseling context., ((c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved.)

There is a lack of research examining patients' and other group members' agreement about their therapeutic alliance. In the present study, the person-group (P-G) fit model was adopted to predict that the group member symptom reduction will be greater when the group member's and the other group members' perceptions of their alliance to the group-as-a-whole fit and are high. In addition, the effect of disagreement between the group member and the other group members in their perceptions of the group alliance on the individual's outcome was investigated by using response surface analysis. Thirty-two patients from 5 long-term (> 1 year) psychodynamic group treatments were studied. Participants filled out the California Psychotherapy Alliance Scale-Group (CALPAS-G; Gaston & Marmar, 1993) and the Outcome Questionnaire-45 (OQ-45; Lambert et al., 1996) monthly over the course of group treatment until termination. As hypothesized, patient's symptom reduction was greater when there was agreement between the group member and the other group members that their alliance to the group as a whole was strong. Contrary to the authors' hypothesis, a lack agreement on alliance to the group as a whole between the patient and the other group members was not related to less symptom reduction, as lack of fit increased, symptom reduction decreased. Also contrary to the authors' hypothesis, when other group members saw their alliance to the group as a whole as stronger than did the patient, there was increased symptom reduction. The findings suggest that the P-G fit model may be a useful strategy to examine group process variables in the psychotherapy context.