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 ϭ 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 ϭ 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.

Abstract:In interviews with 14 counseling center predoctoral interns regarding a significant nondisclosure in supervision, eight interns reported good supervisory relationships and six indicated that they experienced problematic supervisory relationships. Nondisclosures for the interns in good supervisory relationships related to personal reactions to clients, whereas nondisclosures for interns in problematic supervisory relationships related to global dissatisfaction with the supervisory relationship. In both groups, interns mentioned concerns about evaluation and negative feelings as typical reasons for nondisclosure. Additional reasons for nondisclosure for interns in problematic supervision were power dynamics, inhibiting demographic or cultural variables, and the supervisor's theoretical orientation. Both groups described negative effects of nondisclosure on themselves and their relationships with clients. Interns in problematic supervision also reported that nondisclosures had negative effects on the supervisory relationship.Inherent in most models of supervision is the expectation that supervisees will disclose to their supervisors about themselves, their clients, and the therapeutic and supervisory relationships to facilitate the supervision process and therapist development (e.g., Bordin, 1983;Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982;Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987). When supervisees withhold important information from supervisors, opportunities for therapist development are missed and client welfare may be jeopardized (Ladany, Hill, Corbett, & Nutt, 1996;Yourman & Farber, 1996).Supervisee nondisclosure can occur in two ways. In unintentional withholding, lack of disclosure is the result of NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author's final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.Psychotherapy Research, Vol. 18, No. 4 (July 2008 (Farber, 2006;Wallace & Alonso, 1994). By contrast, willful or intentional withholding is the result of supervisees' conscious decisions to distort or not disclose significant information in supervision (Farber, 2006;Ladany et al., 1996). In this study, we focus on willful withholding. The three empirical studies on supervisee intentional nondisclosure in supervision (Ladany et al., 1996;Webb & Wheeler, 1998;Yourman & Farber, 1996) found that supervisees typically withhold important information from their supervisors. These studies surveyed supervisees with a range of training and experience; however, no studies have examined the phenomenon of nondisclosure from the perspective of trainees who are in the culminating internship year of their doctoral program (predoctoral interns). Therefore, our first purpose was to explore predoctoral interns' experience of nondisclosure.Our second goal was to explore reasons for intentional nondisclosure. From empirical data (Ladany et al., 1996), we know that supervisees sometimes do not disclose to their supervisors because the information is deemed irrelevant...

No abstract

The development and validation of a client version of the Real Relationship Inventory (RRI-C) is reported. Using a sample of clients (n = 94) who were currently in psychotherapy, a 24-item measure was developed consisting of two subscales (Realism and Genuineness) and a total score. This 24-item version and other measures used for validation were completed by 93 additional clients. Results of the present study offer initial support for the validity and reliability of the RRI-C. The RRI-C correlated significantly in theoretically expected ways with measures of the client-rated working alliance and therapists' congruence, clients' observing ego, and client ratings of client and therapist real relationship on an earlier measure of the real relationship (Eugster & Wampold, 1996). A nonsignificant relation was found between the RRI-C and a measure of social desirability, providing support for discriminant validity. A confirmatory factor analysis supported the two theorized factors of the RRI-C. The authors discuss the importance of measuring clients' perceptions of the real relationship.

105 volunteer clients completed single sessions of dream interpretation using the Hill (1996) model, with half randomly assigned to waking life interpretation and the other half to parts of self interpretation in the insight stage of the Hill model. No differences were found between waking life and parts of self interpretations, suggesting that therapists can use either type of dream interpretation. Volunteer clients who had positive attitudes toward dreams and presented pleasant dreams had better session outcome; in addition, volunteer clients who had pleasant dreams gained more insight into their dreams. Results suggest that therapists doing single sessions of dream interpretation need to be cautious about working with dreams when volunteer clients have negative attitudes toward dreams and present unpleasant dreams.