You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The German version of the helping alliance questionnaire: psychometric properties in patients with persistent depressive disorder
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-018-1697-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hannah Sophie Eich, Levente Kriston, Elisabeth Schramm, Josef Bailer |
| Abstract |
The Helping Alliance Questionnaire (HAQ) is a frequently used and highly relevant instrument to assess the therapeutic alliance. The questionnaire was translated into German by Bassler and colleagues (1995) and is available for patients (HAQ-P) and therapists (HAQ-T). Whereas the HAQ-P has been tested regarding psychometrics, the HAQ-T has not. This study aimed at further investigating the psychometric properties of both the HAQ-P and HAQ-T. We hypothesized that the instrument is reliable and shows factorial as well as convergent validity. Within the framework of a multisite, randomized-controlled clinical trial, comparing the efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Analyses System of Psychotherapy (CBASP) and supportive psychotherapy (SP) in the treatment of early onset persistently depressed outpatients, the HAQ was filled out by patients (n = 255) and therapists (n = 81). 66.0% of patients were female; average age at randomization was 44.9 years (SD = 11.8). Several confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test different structures for the HAQ. In addition, correlations between the HAQ and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP) were calculated to test for convergent validity. Goodness of fit indices for both a model with two different but strongly related factors named 'relation to the patient/ therapist ' and 'satisfaction with therapeutic outcome' and a second model with only one global helping alliance factor were comparable: Chi-Square-based indices rejected the models; RMSEA closely approached the threshold of good model fit, and CFI/ TLI and SRMR suggested that both models sufficiently fit the data. The internal consistency (Cronbach's α) calculated for the different scales of the HAQ ranges between questionable to good. Finally, the HAQ scores were significantly related to some of the IIP scores. The German versions of the HAQ offer sufficient reliable instruments for the quick assessment of different facets of the therapeutic alliance. The HAQ global scores can be used as indicators for the global impression of the patients and therapists perception of the quality of the therapeutic alliance. However, the small correlations found between the IIP and the HAQ puts the question of external validity into perspective. This study analysed data from a RCT which was registered on ClinicalTrials.com ( NCT00970437 ). First submitted on September 1, 2009. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 18% |
| Researcher | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 18 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 21 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 26 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,483,282
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#4,275
of 4,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,605
of 326,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#109
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.