團體領導者工作同盟量表編製與相關研究

謝麗紅; 巫珮如

doi:10.3966/172851862017080049002

山西大学，您好！

感谢采购，人社期刊库｜人社论文库，期间：2024/01/01~2024/12/31

感谢试用，科学期刊库｜科学论文库，期间：2024/10/20~2025/01/20

浏览高级检索

关闭
检索检索高级检索出版物检索
浏览期刊主题浏览核心期刊浏览期刊拼音浏览

关闭

查询符号(半角)	查询符号意义说明
空格	表示为「AND」两个查询词之交集
双引号 ( " " )	片语以双引号标示开始及结束，而且只寻找出现顺序相同的字词，例： " image process "
?	表示一个字母切截，输入两个?表两个字母，依此类推，例：输入「Appl?」，查得结果应为appl e , appl y … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
*	表示不限字母切截，由0~n. 例：输入「appl*」，查得结果应为appl e , appl es , appl y , appl ied , appl ication … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
AND、OR、NOT	布尔逻辑组合关键字，用来扩大或缩小查询范围的技巧。 (1) AND ：缩小查询范围 (2) OR ：扩大查询范围(3) NOT：排除不相关的范围

DOI 是数位物件识别码（ D igital O bject I dentifier ）的简称，
为物件在网路上的唯一识别码，可用于永久连结并引用目标物件。

使用DOI作为永久连结

每个DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」便成为永久网址。
如以DOI号为 10.5297/ser.1201.002 的文献为例，此文献的永久连结便是： http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5297/ser.1201.002 。
日后不论出版单位如何更动此文献位置，永久连结所指向的位置皆会即时更新，不再错失重要的研究。

引用含有DOI的文献

有DOI的文献在引用时皆应同时引用DOI。若使用APA、Chicago以外未规范DOI的引用格式，可引用DOI永久连结。

DOI可强化引用精确性、增强学术圈连结，并给予使用者跨平台的良好使用经验，目前在全世界已有超过五千万个对象申请DOI。如想对DOI的使用与概念有进一步了解，请参考（）。

ACI:

数据来源：Academic Citation Index，简称ACI

台湾最大的引用文献资料库，目前收录台湾与港澳地区所出版的人文学、社会学领域学术期刊之书目资料与参考文献，总期刊量超过690种，每年定期公布收录期刊的影响指数(Impact Factor)等指标给大众，并提供专家学者与学术单位实用的计量与分析功能。

五年影响指数（5-Year Impact Factor）：某一期刊前五年所出版的文章在当年度的平均被引用次数。

公式：（前五年发表论文在统计年的被引用次数）÷（前五年论文产出论文总篇数）

例如：A期刊2017年之五年影响指数

(A期刊2012-2016年发表论文在2017年的被引总次数)/(A期刊2012-2016年发表的论文总数)

什么是预刊文章？

为提供读者最前线之学术资讯，于期刊文献获同意刊登后、纸本印制完成前，率先于网路线上发表之文章即为预刊文章。预刊文章尚未有卷期、页次及出版日期资讯，但可藉由DOI号识别。 DOI号是文献的数位身份证字号，不论预刊或正式出版皆不会改变，读者可点击DOI连结，或于DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」连结到文献目前最新版本。

如何引用预刊文章？

请使用预刊文章的线上发表日期及DOI号来引用该篇文献。

引用范例(视不同引文格式规范可能有所差异)：

作者姓名。文章篇名。期刊名称。 YYYY/MM/DD线上预先发表。

doi:DOI 号

来源数据

P17 - 51

社会科学 > 心理学
社会科学 > 教育学

DOI： 10.7082/CJGC

书目管理工具

相关连结

问题回报

全文下载

团体领导者工作同盟量表编制与相关研究

The Development of Group Counseling Working Alliance Scale: Leader-rated Scale

谢丽红(Lih-Horng Hsieh) ；巫佩如(Pei-Ju Wu)

中华辅导与谘商学报； 49 期 (2017 / 08 / 01) ， P17 - 51

繁体中文 DOI： 10.3966/172851862017080049002

团体工作同盟；团体气氛；团体领导者；团体凝聚力；团体谘商； Group Counseling ； group leader ； group working alliance ； group climate ； group cohesion

0 个人觉得这篇文章赞

摘要 │ 参考文献 (51) │ 被引用文献 (3) │ 国际计量

摘要〈TOP〉

并列摘要〈TOP〉

The therapist-client relationship or the working alliance plays an important role not only in individual counseling but also in group counseling. Group counseling differs from individual counseling in many ways. Group dynamics is particularly attended to in the process of group counseling. The relations among the group members are rather complex because there are a variety of members with multiple relations among them in a counseling group. Besides, the role of the group leader in a counseling group is different from that of the therapist in individual counseling. The group leader creates an atmosphere of interaction in the group process that cultivates the member's self-exposure and lower the pattern of one-way interaction between the leader and the individual. The group leader would only intervene in the mutual interaction among the members in a group process, instead of responding to the individual. The multiple ways of interactions such as group members' observation, reflection, explanation and feedback require a situation different from working alliance in individual counseling. Based on previous studies, assessing the working alliance used in individual counseling indeed has its limit. Developing the working alliance scale specifically used for group counseling would allow us directly and effectively to assess the working alliance between the leader and group members. There is no group counseling working alliance scale up to now in Taiwan. The purpose of this study is to develop leader-rated group counseling working alliance scale (LGCWAS), which helps the group leaders as a tool to assess groups working alliance development, and help to understand the correlation between the leaders group working alliance scale and members of group working alliance, cohesion, and group climate. The development of this scale mainly refers to the relevant alliance literature, the practical experience of training the leadership skills and strategies for leaders in group counseling by the first author, and the group therapy alliance Scale (GTAS) used by the group members, which is developed by Marziali, Munroe-Blum and McCleary (1997). An original scale is formed by inviting five domestic experts in guidance and counseling to test expert validity on the scale structure and items. The group counseling leaders are tested using this scale. Through evaluating the participants' attitude toward the group therapy working alliance, there are 179 effective questionnaires in total from 31 different groups. We apply confirmatory factor analysis to test the internal consistency and validity of scale construction and its criterion-related validity as a reference for testing the reliability and validity of this assessment tool. After the item analysis and confirmatory factor analysis of the original scale data are carried out, we keep all the items and develop the formal scale with 36 items in total. These results reveal that the three categories in the Content Dimension are Goal, Task, and Bond; the four categories in the Interpersonal Dimension are Self-Therapist, Other-Therapist, Group-Therapist, and within system. The result reveals that the Cronbach's α is .96, Content Dimension Cronbach's α between .89 and .90; Interpersonal Dimension Cronbach's α between .84 and .88. It can be readily seen that the leaders group working alliance scale has good internal consistency. For the criterion-related validity, the correlation between leader-rated group counseling working alliance scale and member-rated group counseling working alliance scale is .12(p ＜ .01). The correlation between leaders group working alliance scale and cohesion is .13(p ＜ .01). The correlation between leaders group working alliance scale and engagement, avoidance, and conflict is .07, -.10, and -.18 respectively (p ＜ .01). These results indicate that the leaders group working alliance scale has good validity as well. This research is consistent with the results reported in the literature as well as the theoretical hypotheses. High working alliance group has high group cohesion. The involvement of group members has positive correlation with the group working alliance. In other words, the high working alliance between the leader and the group members would lead to high involvement in the group process assessed by the group members. On the contrary, the avoidance and conflict assessed by the group members have negative correlation with the working alliance between the leader and the group members. In other words, the low score in the leaders group working alliance scale would lead to more avoidance and conflict of group members. Based on our findings, we make some suggestions for the application of group counseling working alliance scale, the group leaders, professional training in group counseling and future research.

参考文献 ( 51 ) 〈TOP〉

许维素、吴肇元、陈宇芬(2010)。网路谘商当事人知觉之工作同盟、谘商员效能与谘商满意度的相关研究。教育心理学报，41(3)，659-684。
连结：
谢丽红、林咏昌(2014)。团体谘商工作同盟量表编制研究。中华辅导与谘商学报，40，59-93。
连结：
(1994).The working alliance: Theory, research, and practice.Oxford England:John Wiley & Sons.
Al-Darmaki, F.,Kivlighan, D.M., Jr.(1993).Congruence in client-counselor expections for relationship and the working alliance.Journal of Counesling Psychology,40(4),379-384.
Bergin, A.E.(Ed.),Garfield, S.L.(Ed.)(1994).Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change.New York:John Wiley & Sons.

被引用文献 ( 3 ) 〈TOP〉

国际计量

〈TOP〉

E-mail ：

文章公开取用时，将寄通知信至您填写的信箱地址