Group Cohesion and Working Alliance: Prediction of Treatment Outcome in Cardiac Patients Receiving Cognitive Behavioral Group Psychotherapy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Various definitions of both group cohesion and working alliance are used in theories on group psychotherapy, making the study of their relative contribution to the treatment outcome difficult. In this study, two different, nonoverlapping questionnaires were used to explore the relationship between group cohesion, working alliance and treatment outcome in a time-limited, structured cognitive behavioral group psychotherapy aiming at the reduction of coronary risk factors. METHODS: After having undergone percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, 42 patients were treated with the aim to reduce exhaustion, anxiety, hostility and depression. The newly developed Group Cohesion Questionnaire (GCQ) and the Helping Alliance Questionnaire (HAQ-II, measuring the bond between individual patients and the group psychotherapist) were administered after the fifth and tenth treatment session. Exhaustion, quality of life, anxiety, blood pressure and heart rate were measured before and after treatment. To test the relationship between the GCQ, the HAQ-II and outcome variables, Pearson Product-Moment correlations and hierarchical regression was applied. RESULTS: Principal Component Analysis of the GCQ yielded two dimensions, the bond with the group as a whole and the bond with other group members. Hierarchical regression showed that both the bond with other group members and working alliance contributed significantly and independently to the prediction of posttreatment systolic and diastolic blood pressure as well as posttreatment quality of life (confidence). CONCLUSIONS: Conceptually and empirically, group cohesion and the working alliance may be considered to represent different relationships in a psychotherapy group, contributing in different ways to the treatment outcome in cardiac patients receiving cognitive behavioral group psychotherapy.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 67 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.