Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Measuring the Real Relationship in Psychotherapy: Initial Validation of the Therapist Form.

  • Charles J. Gelso
    ,
  • Frances A. Kelley
    ,
  • Jairo N. Fuertes
    ,
  • Cheri Marmarosh
    ,
  • Stacey E. Holmes
    ,
  • Catarina Costa
  • Divine Mercy University
    ,
  • Department of Counseling and Personnel Services, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.
    ,
  • Department of Measurement, Statistics and Evaluation, University of Maryland.
    ,
  • Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Louisiana Tech University.
    ,
  • Department of Psychology, University of Maryland.
    ,
  • Graduate School of Education, Fordham University at Lincoln Center.
Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Research
 Peer-review

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Research
 Peer-review

Original language

English

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 640-649 (10 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Journal of Counseling Psychology (Volume 52, Issue 4)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 01/10/2005

Publication status

Published - 01/10/2005

ISSN

0022-0167

Publication IDs

  • EBSCO: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=a9h&AN=19032475&site=ehost-live&custid=s9884035

Abstract

The development and initial validation of a therapist-rated measure of the real relationship in psychotherapy (the Real Relationship Inventory—Therapist Form [RRI-T]) is reported. Using a sample (n = 80) of practicing psychotherapists and on the basis of prior theory, the authors developed a 24-item measure consisting of 2 subscales (Realism and Genuineness) and a total score. This 24-item version and other measures used for validation were completed by 79 additional practicing therapists and 51 counseling graduate students (n = 130). The RRI-T was found to have high reliability and sound initial validity. As theorized, the RRI-T correlated significantly with measures of working alliance, session outcome (depth and smoothness), client intellectual and emotional insight, and client negative transference. Discriminant validity was supported by a nonsignificant relation to social desirability.

Access to documents

Publication metrics

PlumX, opens in new tab

Captures
85
Citation count
109