Reducing ceiling effects in the Working Alliance Inventory-Rehabilitation Dutch Version

References

• Bordin E. The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychother: Theory Res Pract. 1979;16:252–260.
   Google Scholar
• Bordin E. Theory and research on the therapeutic working alliance: new directions. In: Horvath A, Greenberg L, editors. The working alliance: theory, research and practice. New York: J. Wiley & Sons; 1994. p. 13–37.
   Google Scholar
• Ardito RB, Rabellino D. Therapeutic alliance and outcome of psychotherapy: historical excursus, measurements, and prospects for research. Front Psychol. 2011;2:270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corso KA, Bryan CJ, Corso ML, et al. Therapeutic alliance and treatment outcome in the primary care behavioural health model. Fam Syst Health. 2012;30:87–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne M, Deane FP. Enhancing patient adherence: outcomes of medication alliance training on the therapeutic alliance, insight, adherence, and psychopathology with mental health patients. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2011;20:284–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graves TA, Tabri N, Thompson-Brenner H, et al. Meta-analysis of the relation between therapeutic alliance and treatment outcome in eating disorders. Int J Eat Disord. 2017;40:323–340.
   Google Scholar
• Nienhuis JB, Owen J, Valentine JC, et al. Therapeutic alliance, empathy, and genuineness in individual adult psychotherapy: a meta-analytic review. Psychother Res. 2018;28:593–605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babatunde F, MacDermid J, MacIntyre N. Characteristics of therapeutic alliance in musculoskeletal physiotherapy and occupational therapy practice: a scoping review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuertes JN, Mislowack A, Bennett J, et al. The physician–patient working alliance. Patient Educ Counsel. 2007;66:29–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML, Maher CG, et al. The therapeutic alliance between clinicians and patients predicts outcome in chronic low back pain. Phys Ther. 2013;93:470–478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley J, Kayes NM, McPherson KM. Assessing therapeutic relationships in physiotherapy: literature review. N Z J Physiother. 2011;39:81–91.
   Google Scholar
• Kayes NM, McPherson KM. Human technologies in rehabilitation: 'Who' and 'How' we are with our clients. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:1907–1911.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall AM, Ferreira PH, Maher CG, et al. The influence of the therapist–patient relationship on treatment outcome in physical rehabilitation: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2010;90:1099–1110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paap D, Schrier E, Dijkstra PU. Development and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory Dutch Version for use in rehabilitation setting. Physiother Theory Pract. 2018;7:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Hatcher RL, Gillaspy JA. Development and validation of a revised short version of the Working Alliance Inventory. Psychother Res. 2006;16:12–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Araujo AC, Filho RN, Oliveira CB, et al. Measurement properties of the Brazilian version of the Working Alliance Inventory (patient and therapist short-forms) and Session Rating Scale for low back pain. BMR. 2017;30:879–887.
   Google Scholar
• De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, et al. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 231–235.
   Google Scholar
• Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 116–117.
   Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:10–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paap D, Dijkstra PU. Working alliance inventory-short form revised. J Physiother. 2017;63:118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masino C, Lam TC. Choice of rating scale labels: implication for minimizing patient satisfaction response ceiling effect in telemedicine surveys. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20:1150–1155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vita S, Coplin H, Feiereisel KB, et al. Decreasing the ceiling effect in assessing meeting quality at an academic professional meeting. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25:47–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moret L, Nguyen JM, Pillet N, et al. Improvement of psychometric properties of a scale measuring inpatient satisfaction with care: a better response rate and a reduction of the ceiling effect. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garratt AM, Helgeland J, Gulbrandsen P. Five-point scales outperform 10-point scales in a randomized comparison of item scaling for the Patient Experiences Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 201;64:200–207.
   Google Scholar
• Østerås N, Gulbrandsen P, Garratt A, et al. A randomised comparison of a four- and a five-point scale version of the Norwegian Function Assessment Scale. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;15:14.
   Google Scholar
• Voutilainen A, Pitkäaho T, Kvist T, et al. How to ask about patient satisfaction? The visual analogue scale is less vulnerable to confounding factors and ceiling effect than a symmetric Likert scale. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72:946–957.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolognese JA, Schnitzer TJ, Ehrich EW. Response relationship of VAS and Likert scales in osteoarthritis efficacy measurement. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2003;11:499–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harland NJ, Dawkin MJ, Martin D. Relative utility of a visual analogue scale vs a six-point Likert scale in the measurement of global subject outcome in patients with low back pain receiving physiotherapy. Physiotherapy. 2015;101:50–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan BL, Miller S, Sparks JA, et al. The Session Rating Scale: preliminary psychometric properties of a “working” alliance measure. J Brief Ther. 2003;3:3–12.
   Google Scholar
• Hafkenscheid A. De Outcome rating scale (ORS) en de Session rating scale (SRS). Tijdschr Psychother. 2010;36:394–403.
   Google Scholar
• Luborsky L, Barber JP, Siqueland L, et al. The revised Helping Alliance questionnaire (HAq-II): psychometric properties. J Psychother Pract Res. 1996;5:260–271.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hasson D, Arnetz BB. Validation and findings comparing VAS vs. Likert scales for psychosocial measurements. J Health Educ. 2005;8:178–192.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Mortel TF. Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report research. Pain. 2008;136:366–372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barge S, Gehlbach H. Using the theory of satisficing to evaluate the quality of survey data. Res High Educ. 2012;53:182–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Safran JD, Muran JC, Eubanks-Carter C. Repairing alliance ruptures. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2011;48:80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nocross JC. Psychotherapy relationships that work: evidence based responsiveness. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Munder T, Wilmers F, Leonhart R, et al. Working Alliance Inventory‐Short Revised (WAI‐SR): psychometric properties in outpatients and inpatients. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2010;17:231–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsson AM. Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain. 1983;16:87–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kersten P, White PJ, Tennant A. Is the pain visual analogue scale linear and responsive to change? An exploration using Rasch analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e99485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook C, Heath F, Russel LT, et al. Score reliability in Webor internet-based surveys: unnumbered graphic rating scales versus Likert-type scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 2001;61:697–706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar