The Group Questionnaire: A clinical and empirically derived measure of group relationship

Abstract

The Group Questionnaire (GQ) is a recently developed self-report measure of the therapeutic relationship based on Johnson and colleagues (2005) three-factor model; Positive Bonding, Positive Working, and Negative Relationship. This study validated Johnson's model with a new and extended sample and created a shorter 40-item trial version. SEM analysis of the GQ tested whether it produced the same three-factor structure found in three earlier studies with 486 participants from three populations-outpatient university counseling center, non-patient AGPA process groups, and inpatient state hospital. Results of further SEM refinements demonstrated that a final 30-item version had good fit to the three-factor model although distinct differences in response pattern were found between the three populations. Implications for future utility and clinical relevance of the GQ are discussed.

The validity of the Group Questionnaire: Construct clarity or construct drift?

“…However, because the findings herein agree with studies using nonclinical process, inpatient therapy, and psychi atric hospital groups (Bormann et al, 2011;Krogel et al, 2013), we do not believe the homogeneity unduly affected results. The afore mentioned restriction of range in GQ responses was also a limiting factor in the present study, attenuating the strength of validity coefficients.…”

“…This finding implies that in spite of concerns expressed by Krogel et al (2013), the GQ has not drifted off target and is still a valid tool for measuring the group therapeutic relationship.…”

“…Reliability coefficients indi cated acceptable reliability for all three GQ subscales, with the Positive Bonding and Posi tive Working Relationship subscales meeting criteria for excellent reliability. These values are similar to those reported by Krogel et al (2013). Because the GQ data collected from the university counseling centers had a restricted range, as counseling center GQ data tend to have (Krogel et al, 2013), the Ghiselli et al (1981) formula was employed to estimate what the GQ subscales' reliability coefficients would have been if range was not attenuated.…”

“…addressed intragroup de pendency in their original formulation of the Johnson Model, the three most recent validity studies on the GQ (i.e.,Krogel et al, 2013; …”

A mathematical framework for the complex system approach to group dynamics: The case of recovery house social integration.

“…Historically, within-group structure is overwhelmingly conceptualized and measured in terms of linkages between individuals and the rest of the group-as-a-whole (Lewin, 1947; Thayer & Burlingame, 2014), for instance, how supported one feels by the rest of the group. Although instruments designed to measure such linkages have been studied and validated (Thayer & Burlingame, 2014), and group membership has been found to explain as much as 25% of the variance in, for instance, the Group Questionnaire (Krogel et al, 2013)—a fairly high number, by social psychological standards—still, a good deal is unexplained. This could suggest that the concept of group-as-a-whole may be a tractable approximation to relevant within-group relationship structures and their dynamics.…”