團體諮商工作同盟量表編製研究

Development of Group Counseling Working Alliance Scale

謝麗紅(Lih-Horng Hsieh) ； 林詠昌(Yung-Chang Lin)

《中華輔導與諮商學報》 40期 (2014/08) Pp. 59-93

摘要

本研究旨在編製團體工作同盟量表，協助領導者了解與成員之工作同盟狀態，以發展為評估團體歷程之工具。研究者翻譯與修訂Marziali、Munroe-Blum與McCleary（1997）所編製之團體治療同盟量表（GTAS），藉由反覆翻譯法以及專家效度檢核形成預試量表，題項共為36題。量表針對團體諮商成員進行預試，共獲得有效問卷274份，預試所得資料進行鑑別力分析、項目分析，以及驗證性因素分析，將不適當的題目刪除後形成正式量表32題。正式量表評估團體諮商成員對於團體的工作同盟感受程度，共獲得有效問卷318份。研究結果顯示，本量表α係數為.95，經驗證性因素分析及考驗量表之收斂效度及區辨效度，並以團體氣氛量表、團體治療性因素量表－對團體正向的感覺分量表作為效標，進行效標關聯效度考驗。本量表與團體凝聚力之積差相關係數為.725，與團體氣氛量表之投入分量表.576，逃避.182，衝突-.267，整體而言具有良好之信度及效度。本量表在內容向度因素上分為：目標、任務、聯結，在人際系統向度上分為：成員與領導者、其他成員與領導者、成員與其他成員、及整個團體與領導者的關係，為3×4之因素矩陣。最後，本研究針對量表應用，以及後續研究進行討論並提出相關建議。

關鍵字

工作同盟 ； 團體氣氛 ； 團體諮商 ； 團體諮商工作同盟 ； 團體凝聚力

並列摘要

The purpose of this study is to develop a group counseling working alliance scale (GCWAS), which helps the group leaders understand their working alliance with members and can be used as a measure to evaluate the group process. By the translation and back translation method and expert validity check, the authors translated and modified the Group Therapy Alliance Scale (GTAS) originally developed by Marziali, Munroe-Blum, and McCleary (1997). There are 36 items in this original scale. Through a pilot study with 274 samples, only 32 items would be used in the formal scale after a factor analysis. A total of 318 participants were involved in this study to evaluate their attitude toward the group counseling working alliance. The results revealed that the Cronbach's α of the GCWAS was.95. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine the fitting indices for this scale and validity was evaluated by the convergent validity and discriminant validity. A significant correlation was found between GCWAS and group climate. In addition, a significant correlation was found between GCWAS and the positive feeling for the group. The correlation between GCWAS and cohesion was .73. The correlation between GCWAS and engagement, avoidance, and conflict was .58, .18, and -.27 respectively. In general, GCWAS has sound psychometric property regarding its reliability and validity. Moreover, these results identified that the three domains in the Content Dimension are (a) Goal, (b) Task, and (c) Bond; the four domains in the Interpersonal Dimension are (a) Member and Group Leader, (b) Other Members and Group Leader, (c) Member and Other Members, and (d) Group and Group Leader relationships. These two dimensions form a 3×4 matrix. Finally, the implications of this scale and future research directions were discussed.

並列關鍵字

group climate ； group cohesion ； group counseling ； group counseling working alliance ； working alliance

參考文獻

洪莉竹、陳秉華(2005)。臺灣諮商人員對西方諮商與華人文化信念衝突的轉化經驗。教育心理學報。37(1)，79-98。

Abouguendia, M.,Joyce, A. S.,Piper, W. E.,Ogrodniczuk, J. S.(2004).Alliance as a mediator of expectancy effects in short-term group psychotherapy.Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice.8(1),3-12.

Anderson, J. C.,Gerbing, D. W.(1988).Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.Psychological Bulletin.103(3),411-423.

Bagozzi, R. P.,Yi, Y.(1988).On the evaluation of structural equation models.Academic of Marketing Science.16,76-94.

Bordin, E. S.(1979).The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance.Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice.16(3),252-260.