Relational depth from the perspective of the psychotherapy dyad: Psychometric properties of the Relational Depth Frequency Scale

Extended validation of the Relational Depth Frequency Scale: Retest reliability, divergent validity, criterion validity with psychotherapy satisfaction, and measurement invariance in UK‐ and US‐stratified samples

“…Reliability tests corroborated prior results. The excellent internal consistency of > 0.9 in both samples was comparable to internal consistency from prior studies in online samples (Di Malta, Evans, et al, 2020) and in clinical samples (Zarzycka et al, 2022). Retest reliability after 1 month was above 0.7 in both samples.…”

“…These two types of MI are prerequisites for making an unbiased comparison of latent means across groups or time (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). So far, only one study has attempted to establish the MI of the RDFS across clinical dyad populations of psychotherapy clients and therapists (Zarzycka et al, 2022). However, we still do not know whether the RDFS could be compared across countries, gender, and whether it could make meaningful mean comparisons when assessed over time in longitudinal studies.…”

“…The total score for the RDFS is summed and ranging from six to 30 with a higher score meaning more frequent RD, and no specified cut‐off scores. The RDFS has shown excellent internal consistency ( α > 0.90) and validity in online samples of therapists and patients (Di Malta, Cooper, et al, 2020; Di Malta, Evans, et al, 2020), and in a clinical sample of psychotherapy dyads (Zarzycka et al, 2022). In this study, the RDFS' internal consistency was Cronbach's α > 0.90 in the UK and US samples.…”

“…It showed good convergent validity with the WAI‐SR ( r = 0.71) and the RDI ( r = 0.77; Di Malta, Evans, et al, 2020). The validity of the instrument was later tested in clinical samples of patients and psychotherapists dyads in Poland, where its structure was replicated (Zarzycka et al, 2022). It showed good internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach's α = 0.81 for patients), and good convergent validity with the Scale to Assess the Therapeutic Relationship ( r ranging from 0.37 to 0.65; Zarzycka et al, 2022).…”

Opportunities for Joy: A Mindful Path to Self-Compassion and Compassion for the Neurodiverse

“…Empathy and compassion for our clients is foundational to experiencing a rich, deep, and complex therapeutic relationship that is mutually and collaboratively developed and nurtured. Relational depth is defined as the psychotherapeutic contact, immersive connection, interaction, investment, understanding, and valuing that is consistently expressed by the counselor and client for one another (Cooper, 2005; Kim et al, 2020; Knox, 2008; Knox, 2012; Zarzycka et al, 2021; Zarzycka et al, 2022). Relational depth is “the main predictor of [counselor] well-being and burnout, and its relationship with well-being and burnout is mediated by the quality of the therapeutic relationship” (Zarzycka et al, 2021, p. 256).…”