Abstract
The Session Rating Scale (SRS) is a widely used clinical tool to measure the client-therapist working alliance. This study investigated the psychometric properties, the cut-off value, and longitudinal invariance of the SRS in a Chinese clinical population. The analyses were conducted separately in a sample of college students in counseling (n = 403) and in a sample of clients in outpatient therapy (n = 246). Participants completed the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) before each session and the SRS after each session. To test concurrent validity, a subset of participants also completed the Working Alliance Questionnaire at the end of each session. In both samples, the results indicated high internal consistency (α = .92 ~ 0.97) and adequate test-retest reliability over four sessions (university sample: r = .69 ~ .78; outpatient sample: r = .52 ~ .66). Construct validity was evident in a one-factor structure, and concurrent validity was established based on a strong correlation with the Working Alliance Questionnaire (r = .64 ~ .70). In addition, regression analysis indicated that early alliance ratings (at the third session) on the SRS predicted post-ORS scores. The cut-off value for the SRS in the Chinese context was established as 34. The longitudinal measurement invariance was tested by a longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis. Full scalar invariance of the SRS was supported. This study supported the use of the SRS in China and that a single-factor solution stayed stable over time, providing preliminary evidence for subsequent mean comparisons.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Anker, M. G., Owen, J., Duncan, B. L., & Sparks, J. A. (2010). The alliance in couple therapy: Partner influence, early change, and alliance patterns in a naturalistic sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(5), 635–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020051.
Campbell, A., & Hemsley, S. (2009). Outcome rating scale and session rating scale in psychological practice: Clinical utility of ultra-brief measures. Clinical Psychologist, 13(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13284200802676391.
Cazauvieilh, C., Gana, K., Miller, S. D., & Quintard, B. (2020). Validation of the French versions of two brief, clinician-friendly outcome monitoring tools: The ORS and SRS. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00992-x.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.
Crits-Christoph, P., Gibbons, M. B. C., Hamilton, J., Ring-Kurtz, S., & Gallop, R. (2011). The dependability of alliance assessments: The alliance-outcome correlation is larger than you might think. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(3), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023668.
Duan, C., Hill, C. E., Jiang, G., Hu, B., Lei, Y., Chen, J., & Yu, L. (2015). The counselor perspective on the use of directives in counseling in China: Are directives different in China as in the United States? Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 28(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2014.965659.
Duncan, B. L. (2012). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS): The heart and soul of change project. Canadian Psychology-Psychologie Canadienne, 53(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027762.
Duncan, B. L. (2014). On becoming a better therapist: Evidence-based practice one client at a time (2nd ed). American Psychological Association.
Duncan, B. L., & Reese, R. J. (2015). The partners for change outcome management system (PCOMS) revisiting the client's frame of reference. Psychotherapy, 52(4), 391–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000026.
Duncan, B., & Sparks, J. (2019). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System: An integrated elearning manual for everything PCOMS. Author.
Duncan, B. L., Miller, S. D., Sparks, J. A., Claud, D. A., Reynolds, L. R., Brown, J., & Johnson, L. D. (2003). The session rating scale: Preliminary psychometric properties of a “working” alliance measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 3(1), 3–12.
Falkenstrom, F., Hatcher, R. L., Skjulsvik, T., Larsson, M. H., & Holmqvist, R. (2015). Development and validation of a 6-item working Alliance questionnaire for repeated administrations during psychotherapy. Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000038.
Fluckiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wampold, B. E., & Horvath, A. O. (2018). The alliance in adult psychotherapy: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychotherapy, 55, 316–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000172.
Fluckiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wlodasch, D., Horvath, A. O., Solomonov, N., & Wampold, B. E. (2020). Assessing the alliance-outcome association adjusted for patient characteristics and treatment processes: A meta-analytic summary of direct comparisons. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Advance online publication, 67, 706–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000424.
Hafkenscheid, A., Duncan, B. L., & Miller, S. D. (2010). The outcome and session rating scales: A cross-cultural examination of the psychometric properties of the Dutch translation. Journal of Brief Therapy, 7(1), 1–12.
Hatcher, R. L., & Gillaspy, J. A. (2006). Development and validation of a revised short version of the working Alliance inventory. Psychotherapy Research, 16(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300500352500.
Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3), 117–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610739208253916.
Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hukkelberg, S. S., & Ogden, T. (2016). The short working Alliance inventory in parent training: Factor structure and longitudinal invariance. Psychotherapy Research, 26(6), 719–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2015.1119328.
Janse, P., Boezen-Hilberdink, L., van Dijk, M. K., Verbraak, M., & Hutschemaekers, G. J. M. (2014). Measuring feedback from clients. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30(2), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000172.
Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T. (2006). What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.165.
Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(3), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.68.3.438.
Miller, S. D., Duncan, B., Brown, J., Sparks, J., & Claud, D. (2003). The outcome rating scale: A preliminary study of the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a brief visual analog measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 2(2), 91–100.
Moggia, D., Niño-Robles, N., Miller, S, D., & Feixas, G. (2020). Psychometric properties of the session rating scale 3.0 in a Spanish clinical sample. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2020.1778635.
Murphy, M. G., Rakes, S., & Harris, R. M. (2020). The psychometric properties of the session rating scale: A narrative review. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 17, 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2020.1729281.
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004.
Quirk, K., Miller, S., Duncan, B., & Owen, J. (2013). Group session rating scale: Preliminary psychometrics in substance abuse group interventions. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 13(3), 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733145.2012.744425.
Reese, R. J., Norsworthy, L. A., & Rowlands, S. R. (2009). Does a continuous feedback system improve psychotherapy outcome? Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice. Training, 46(4), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017901.
Sharf, J., Primavera, L. H., & Diener, M. J. (2010). Dropout and therapeutic alliance: A meta-analysis of adult individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 47(4), 637–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021175.
She, Z., Sun, Q.-W., & Jiang, G.-R. (2017). Reliability and validity of Chinese version of outcome rating scale. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25(2), 272–275. https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2017.02.017.
She, Z., Duncan, B. L., Reese, R. J., Sun, Q. W., Shi, Y. W., Jiang, G. R., et al. (2018). Client feedback in China: A randomized clinical trial in a college counseling center. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(6), 727–737. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000300.
Sparks, J. A., & Duncan, B. L. (2018). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System: A both/and system for collaborative practice. Family Process., 57(3), 800–816. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12345.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002.
Youn, S. J., Castonguay, L. G., McAleavey, A. A., Nordberg, S. S., Hayes, J. A., & Locke, B. D. (2020). Sensitivity to change of the counseling center assessment of psychological Symptoms-34. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 53(2), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2019.1691459.
Zhu, X., & Jiang, G. (2011). Development of the working alliance questionnaire. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19, 449–454 CNKI:SUN:ZLCY.0.2011–04-008.
Funding
The present study was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (18BSH129), the Shanghai Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project (2017BSH004), the Shanghai Pujiang Program of China (12PJ037), the Research Project of Shanghai Science and Technology Commission (20DZ2260300), the Science and Technology Innovation Action Plan of Shanghai Science and Technology Commission (20DZ2304400).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Informed Consent
Informed consent (written) was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
Barry L. Duncan is a co-holder of the copyright of the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS) instruments (the Outcome and Session Rating Scales). The measures are free for individuals but Duncan receives royalties from licenses issued to groups and organizations. In addition, the web-based application of PCOMS, BetterOutcomesNow.com, is a commercial product and he receives profits based on sales.
Research Involving Human Participants
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. This research was also approved by all clinical sites where the study was conducted.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
She, Z., Shi, Y., Duncan, B.L. et al. Psychometric properties and longitudinal invariance of the session rating scale in Chinese clinical samples. Curr Psychol 42, 3650–3657 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01721-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01721-8