Directieve therapie

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 5–25 | Cite as

Routine monitoren in partnerrelatiebehandelingen



In het Sinai Centrum (joodse geestelijke gezondheidszorg) wordt gewerkt met een routinemonitorsysteem. Het verloop van therapieën wordt op de voet gevolgd door patiënten en therapeuten na elk behandelcontact gestandaardiseerde monitorinstrumenten te laten invullen. Het perspectief van de patiënt wordt gemeten met de Session Rating Scale en de Outcome Rating Scale, het perspectief van de therapeut met de Therapist Satisfaction Scale. Routinemonitorsystemen zijn vooral bekend van individuele behandelingen. Aan de hand van een terugblik op twee partnerrelatiebehandelingen wordt gedemonstreerd welke mogelijkheden routine monitoren biedt bij echtpaartherapie.


The Sinai Centre, a Dutch Jewish mental health agency, has adopted a routine monitor system to track patients’ therapeutic progress on a session-by-session base. Treatment gains are measured from both patient’s and therapist’s perspective, using three brief standardised monitor instruments: the Session Rating Scale and the Outcome Rating Scale (filled out by patients) and the Therapist Satisfaction Scale (filled out by therapists). Routine monitor systems are predominantly used to track progress in individual therapies, but can be applied in marital therapy as well. In this article, the treatment processes of two couples receiving marital therapy are retrospectively analysed using the monitor data that were collected over the course of their therapies.


  1. Arrindell, W.A. & Ettema, J.H.M. (2003). Symptom Checklist (SCL-90). Handleiding bij een multidimensionele psychopathologie-indicator. Lisse: Swets Test Publishers. Google Scholar
  2. Barelds, D.P.H., Luteijn, F., & Arrindell, W.A. (2003). Handleiding Nederlandse relatie vragenlijst (NRV). Lisse: Swets en Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  3. Duncan, B.L., Miller, S.D., & Sparks, J.A. (2004). The heroic client: a revolutionary way to improve effectiveness through client-directed, outcome-informed therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. 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: psychometric properties of a “working” alliance measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 3, 3-12.Google Scholar
  5. Hafkenscheid, A. (2007). Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) of Practice-Based Evidence (PBE)? Gedragstherapie, 40, 125-139. Google Scholar
  6. Hafkenscheid, A. (2008). Routine Process Monitoring: ervaringen uit de praktijk. Tijdschrift Cliëntgerichte Psychotherapie, 46, 327-345.Google Scholar
  7. Lambert, M.J. (2007). Presidential address: What we have learned from a decade of research aimed at improving psychotherapy outcome in routine care. Psychotherapy Research, 17, 1-14. Google Scholar
  8. Lambert, M.J. Whipple, J.L., Hawkins, E.J., Vermeersch, D.A., Nielsen, S.L., & Smart, D.W. (2003). Is it time for clinicians to routinely track patient outcome? A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 288-301. Google Scholar
  9. Lange, A. (1983). De Interactionele Probleem Oplossings Vragenlijst (IPOV). Deventer: Van Loghum.Google Scholar
  10. Miller, S.D., Duncan, B.L., Brown, J., Sparks, J.A., & Claud, D. (2003). The Outcome Rating Scale: a preliminary study of the reliability, validity and feasibility of a brief Visual Analogue measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 2, 91-100.Google Scholar
  11. Miller, S.D., Duncan, B.L., & Hubble, M.A. (2004). Beyond integration: the triumph of outcome over process in clinical practice. Psychotherapy in Australia, 10, 2-19. Google Scholar
  12. Miller, S.D., Duncan, B.L., Sorrell, R., & Brown, G.S. (2005). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System. Journal Clinical Psychology/In Session, 61, 199-208.Google Scholar
  13. Miller, S.D., Mee-Mee, D., Plum, B., & Hubble, M.A. (2005). Making treatment count: client-directed, outcome-informed clinical work with problem drinkers. Psychotherapy in Australia, 11, 42-56.Google Scholar
  14. Van der Sluijs, L.H. (2007). Wat werkt in therapie? Systeemtherapie, 19, 116-118.Google Scholar
  15. Van der Sluijs, L.H. (2008). Hoe Scott Miller inspireert. Systeemtherapie, 20, 165-170.Google Scholar
  16. Tracey, T.J. (1992). Client Satisfaction Scale (CSS) and Therapist Satisfaction Scale (TSS) manual. Tempe: Arizona State University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.

Personalised recommendations