Advertisement

Tijdschrift voor Psychotherapie

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 92–101 | Cite as

Objectieve tegenoverdracht en werkalliantie

  • Floor Boekholt
  • Saskia Van Broeckhuysen-Kloth
  • Gijs Bloemsaat
Artikelen

Samenvatting

Wij onderzochten of en in hoeverre de bewustwording van therapeuten van hun ‘objectieve’ tegenoverdracht van invloed is op de door de cliënt ervaren werkalliantie. ‘Objectieve’ tegenoverdracht verwijst naar ongereflecteerde gevoelens van de therapeut die door de disfunctionele interpersoonlijke gedragingen van de cliënt worden opgeroepen. Objectieve tegenoverdracht werd gemeten met de Impact message inventory circumplex (IMI-C); cliënttevredenheid met de Session rating scale (SRS).In een gerandomiseerd gecontroleerd onderzoek vulden de therapeuten in de experimentele groep de IMI-C in en kregen zij grafische feedback over hun scores, dit in tegenstelling tot de therapeuten in de controlegroep. Alle cliënten beoordeelden de werkalliantie na iedere sessie. Cliënten van therapeuten in de experimentele groep beoordeelden therapiesessies positiever dan cliënten van therapeuten in de controleconditie. Enige implicaties van deze resultaten worden besproken.

Literatuur

  1. Andrews, B. (2007). Doing what counts. Human Givens Journal, 14, 32-37.Google Scholar
  2. Asay, T., & Lambert, M. (1999). The empirical case for the common factors. In B.L. Duncan, M.A. Hubble, & S.D. Miller (Eds.), The heart & soul of change: What works in therapy (pp. 23-55). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  3. Bordin, E.S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16, 252-260.Google Scholar
  4. Colijn, S., Snijders, J.A., & Trijsburg, R.W. (2003). Leerboek integratieve psychotherapie. Utrecht: De Tijdstroom. Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Hafkenscheid, A. (2003). Objective countertransference: Do patients’ interpersonal impacts generalize across therapists? Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 10, 31-40. Google Scholar
  8. Hafkenscheid, A. (2004a). De interpersoonlijke communicatietheorie (ICT) van Donald J. Kiesler (1). De theorie. Psychopraxis, 6, 15-19.Google Scholar
  9. Hafkenscheid, A. (2004b). De interpersoonlijke communicatietheorie (ICT) van Donald J. Kiesler (2). De praktijk. Psychopraxis, 6, 59-64. Google Scholar
  10. Hafkenscheid, A. (2004c). Hoe ‘rogeriaans’ is de interpersoonlijke communicatietheorie en -therapie (ICT) van Donald J. Kiesler? Tijdschrift Cliëntgerichte Psychotherapie, 42, 267-278.Google Scholar
  11. Hafkenscheid, A. (2005). The impact Message Inventory (IMI-C): Generalizability of patients command end relationship messages across psychiatric nurses. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 12, 325-332. Google Scholar
  12. Hafkenscheid, A. & Kiesler, D. (2007). Assessing objective countertransference: a comparison of two different statistical procedures in three different samples. Psychotherapy Research, 17, 393-403.Google Scholar
  13. Hafkenscheid A. & Rouckhout, D. (2009). Circumplex structure of the Impact Message Inventory (IMI-C): An empirical test with the Dutch version. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 187-194.Google Scholar
  14. Hafkenscheid, A., Duncan, B.L., & Miller, S.C. (in druk). The outcome and session rating scales. A cross-cultural examination of the psychometric properties of the Dutch translation. Journal of Brief Therapy. Google Scholar
  15. Horvath, A.O., & Symonds, B.D. (1991). Relation between working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 139-149.Google Scholar
  16. Horvath, A.O., Gaston, L., & Luborsky, L. (1993). The therapeutic alliance and its measures. In N.E. Miller, L. Luborsky, J.P. Barber, & J.P. Docherty (Eds.), Psychoanalytic treatment research: A handbook for clinical practice (pp. 247-273). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Horvath, A.O., & Greenberg, L.S. (Eds.) (1994). Theory, research, and practice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Kiesler, D.J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psychopathology and psychotherapy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Krupnick, J.L., Sotsky, S.M., Elkin, I., Simmens, S., Moyer, J., Watkins, J., & Pilkonis, P.A. (1996). The role of the therapeutic alliance in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy outcome: Findings in the National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of depression collaborative research program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 532-39.Google Scholar
  20. Lambert, M.J. & Ogles, B. (2004). The efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy. In M.J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 139-193). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. 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, 438-450.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Querido, A.A. (2005). Overdracht en tegenoverdracht. In F. Verhey (red.), Integratieve kinder- en jeugdpsychotherapie (pp. 408-423). Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  24. Safran, J.D., & Muran, J.C. (2000). Negotiating the therapeutic alliance. A relational treatment guide. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  25. Wampold, B. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Floor Boekholt
  • Saskia Van Broeckhuysen-Kloth
  • Gijs Bloemsaat

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations