You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The therapeutic alliance is a relational construct, yet it is often assessed from only one perspective. This study aimed to: (1) examine whether patient and therapist alliance ratings converge over time in short-term psychotherapy for adolescent depression; (2) assess whether average alliance ratings and discrepancies between patient and therapist ratings are associated with treatment outcomes; and (3) identify which rating or combination best predicts outcomes. Data were drawn from the IMPACT trial, a randomized controlled study comparing cognitive-behavioral-therapy and short-term psychoanalytic-psychotherapy to a brief-psychosocial-intervention. Alliance strength and depression severity were assessed in 130 adolescent – therapist dyads at 6, 12, and 36 weeks post-randomization. Alliance convergence and divergence were examined using mean scores and absolute differences respectively. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate alliance trajectories and their association with symptom change. Results showed that patient- and therapist-rated alliance scores were moderately correlated across time points, with both increasing over time. Patient-rated alliance, therapist-rated alliance, and the dyadic average all significantly predicted symptom reduction. Although greater rating discrepancies were linked to poorer outcomes, this was not statistically significant. Results suggest that shared perceptions of the alliance may support better treatment outcomes and underscore the value of monitoring both patient and therapist perspectives.