From OQ ® to GQ ® : Measuring Group Member Experience Jennie Bingham, Ph.D. Mark Beecher, Ph.D. Brigham Young University ACPA Annual Convention Indianapolis, Indiana
Measurement – does it mean what we think it means? Qualitative study of using the OQ ® before every session (Jensen, Golightly, & Beecher, unpublished data) ▫ Measures are more successful when the purpose is clear ▫ Measurement is unpleasant but helpful (at least for some) ▫ Measures can be used as primer/organizer for sessions ▫ Clients’ feel measures don’t fully capture their experience It’s a piece of the puzzle – but an important one! ▫Find out what it means to the client
The Group Questionnaire Measures positive bond, positive work, and negative relationship Does so across three parts of the therapeutic relationship: member-member, member-leader, and member-group Created by the Consortium for Group Research and Practice (C-GRP) at Brigham Young University
The “I’m good” Dropout… ▫“I don’t think I need group this semester. I am doing really well. Thanks!”
AND the OQ Survey Says… Copyright © 2014 by OQ Measures (Distressed)
So what was happening in group? Copyright © 2014 by OQ Measures
Copyright © 2014 by OQ Measures
New Group Feedback Format Compiled by Jordan Rands and Kait Whitcomb as part of a study being conducted by Drs. Gary Burlingame and Mark Beecher These features slated to be available in OQ ® - Analyst late summer /
Conflict and Rupture Copyright © 2014 by OQ Measures
After Implemented Feedback Copyright © 2014 by OQ Measures
Copyright © 2014 by OQ Measures Hug ed Conflict Process Rupture
Copyright © 2014 by OQ Measures Process Rupture Conflict ed Hug
Copyright © 2014 by OQ Measures Hug ed Conflict Process Rupture
So How do I Use this Feedback? Limited only by your creativity! ▫Identify differences between what is observed in session and what is reported on GQ ▫To highlight patterns ▫To address safety concerns ▫Share individual results ▫Plan interventions ▫Ideas for ways to support those in danger of dropping out
References Bakali, J., Baldwin, S., Lorentzen, S. (2009). Modelling group process constructs at three stages during psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 19(3), Bormann, B., & Straus, B. (2007). Gruppenklima, Kohäsion, Allianz und Empathie als Komponenten der therapeutischen Beziehung in Gruppenpsychotherapien – Überprüfung eines Mehrebenen-Modells. Gruppenpsychotherapie und Gruppendynamik, 43(1), Bormann, B., Burlingame, G. & Strauss, B (2011). Der Gruppenfragebogen (GQ-D). Instrument zur Messung von therapeutischen Beziehungen in der Gruppenpsychotherapie. Psychotherapeut, 56, Burlingame, G.M. (2010). Small group treatments: Introduction to special section. Psychotherapy Research, 20(1), 1-7. Burlingame, G., McClendon, D., & Alonso, J (2011). Cohesion in group psychotherapy. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), A Guide to Psychotherapy Relationships that Work (2nd Ed.). Oxford University Press.
References Chapman, C., Burlingame, G., Reese, F., Gleave, R., Beecher, M., & Porter, G. (2012). Clinical prediction in group psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 22(6), Jensen, D., Golightly, T., & Beecker, M. What are the clients really thinking? Investigating client perspectives on routine outcome measures in a university counseling center, in preparation. Johnson, J., Burlingame, G. M., Olsen, D., Davies, R., & Gleave, R. L. (2005). Group Climate, Cohesion, Alliance, and Empathy in Group psychotherapy: Multilevel Structural Equation Models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(3), Krogel, J., Burlingame, G., Chapman, C., Renshaw, T., Gleave, R., Beecher, M., & MacNair-Semands, R. (2013). The Group Questionnaire: A clinical and empirically derived measure of the group relationship. Psychotherapy Research, 23(3), Thayer, S (2012). The validity of the Group Questionnaire: Construct clarity or construct drift. Unpublished dissertation, Brigham Young University.