Italian adaptation of the Group Questionnaire: validity and factorial structure


The Group Questionnaire (GQ) is a measure recently developed by Krogel et al. (2013) for the evaluation of the therapeutic relationship in group. The GQ identifies a three-factor model of the relationship that allows to measure quality (Positive Bonding, Positive Working and Negative Relationship) and structure (member-member, member-leader and member-group), dimensions in group. This work shows the results of a first study on the Italian validation of the GQ. In this study the GQ was administered to 536 subjects from 32 non-clinical groups of undergraduate students. The cross-cultural validity of the GQ in the Italian population has been examined by comparing the psychometric properties and equivalence in factor structure and scores of the Italian GQ with the original American version. Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine both the between- and within-group structures. Data concerning reliability and validity of GQ and the results for different SEM in Multilevel CFA confirm the three factors structure of the GQ. Data from the Italian population have a good fit with the original proposed model. Finally, we discuss the importance of an instrument like GQ, short but consistent, for the evaluation of the therapeutic relationship in clinical and training group.



PlumX Metrics


Download data is not yet available.


Arbuckle, J.L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: Smallwaters.

Bakali, J. V., Baldwin, S. A., & Lorentzen, S. (2009). Modeling group process constructs at three stages in group psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 19(3), 332-343. DOI:

Bakali, J. V., Wilberg, T., Hagtvet, K. A., & Lorentzen, S. (2010). Sources accounting for alliance and cohesion at three stages in group psychotherapy: Variance component analyses. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(4), 368. DOI:

Barbaranelli, C. (2006), Analisi dei Dati: Tecniche Multivariate per la Ricerca Sociale, Milan: LED Edizioni.

Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bullettin, 107, 238-246. DOI:

Bormann, B., Burlingame, G. & Strauss, B. (2011) Der Gruppenfragebogen (GQ-D) Instrument zur Messung von therapeutischen Beziehungen in der Gruppenpsychotherapie. Psychotherapeut 56, 297-309. DOI:

Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen, J.S. Long (eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp.136-162.

Burlingame, G. M., Fuhriman, A., & Johnson, J. E. (2001). Cohesion in group psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 38(4), 373. DOI:

Burlingame, G. M., MacKenzie, K. R., & Strauss, B. (2004). Small group treatment: Evidence for effectiveness and mechanisms of change. In M. J. Lambert (Eds), Bergin and Garfield’s Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (5th ed., pp. 647-696).

Burlingame, G. M., McClendon, D. T., & Alonso, J. (2011). Cohesion in group therapy. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 34. DOI:

Burlingame, G. M., Strauss, B., & Joyce, A. S. (2013). Change mechanisms and effectiveness of small group treatments. In M. J. Lambert (Eds), Bergin and Garfield’s Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (6th ed., pp. 640-689).

Burlingame, G., Gleave, R., Beecher, M., Griner, D., Hansen, K., & Jensen, J. (2017). Administration and Scoring Manual for the Group Questionnaire—GQ. Salt Lake City, UT: OQ Measures.

Burlingame, G., McClendon, D., & Yang, C. (2018a). Cohesion in Group Therapy: A Meta-Analysis. Psychotherapy, 55, 4, 384–398. DOI:

Burlingame, G., Whitcomb, K., Woodland, S., Olsen, J., Beecher, M., & Gleave, R. (2018b). The Effects of Relationship and Progress Feedback in Group Psychotherapy Using the Group Questionnaire and Outcome Questionnaire– 45: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Psychotherapy 55, 2, 116–131. DOI:

Carmines, E., & McIver, J. (1981). Analyzing Models With Unobserved Variables: Analysis of Covariance Structures. Social Measurement: Current Issues, eds. G. Bohrnstedt and E. Borgatta, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 61–73.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319. DOI:

Compare, A., Tasca, G., Lo Coco, G., Kivlighan, D.M. (2016). Congruence of Grou Therapist and Group Member Alliance Judgments in Emotionally Focused Group Therapy for Binge Eating Disorder. Psychotherapy, 53, 163–173. doi:10.1037/pst0000042 DOI:

Crowe, T. P., & Grenyer, B. F. (2008). Is therapist alliance or whole group cohesion more influential in group psychotherapy outcomes?. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 15(4), 239-246. DOI:

Gaston, L. (1991). Reliability and criterion-related validity of the California Psychotherapy Alliance Scales-patient version. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3(1), 68. DOI:

Gaston, L., Marmar, C. (1994). The California psychotherapy alliance scales. The working alliance: Theory, research and practice, 85-108.

Giannone, F., Giordano, C., & Di Blasi, M. (2015). Group Psychotherapy in Italy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 65, 501–511. DOI:

Giannone, F., Lo Cascio, M., Gullo, S., Ferraro, A.M., Infurna, M.R., Guarnaccia, C. (2019). La Relazione Terapeutica nei Gruppi. I Principali Costrutti del Processo Terapeutico: Definizioni Empiriche e Strumenti. F. N. Vasta, S. Gullo, R. Girelli (eds). Psicoterapia Psicodinamica di Gruppo e Ricerca Empirica. Una Guida per il Clinico. Roma: Alpes.

Griner, D., Beecher, M., Brown, L., Millet, A., Worthen, V., Boardman, R., Hansen, K. Cox, J., & Gleave, R. (2018). Practice-Based Evidence Can Help! Using the Group Questionnaire to Enhance Clinical Practice. Psychotherapy, 55, 2, 196–202. DOI:

Gullo, S., Lo Coco, G., Di Fratello, C., Giannone, F., Mannino, G., & Burlingame, G. (2015). Group climate, cohesion and curative climate. A study on the common factors in group process and their relation with members attachment dimensions. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 18(1), 10-20. doi: 10.4081/rippo. 2015.160.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Long-versus short-term orientation: new perspectives. Asia Pacific business review, 16(4), 493-504. DOI:

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55

Janis, R. A., Burlingame, G. M., & Olsen, J. A. (2016). Evaluating Factor Structures of Measures in Group Research: Looking Between and Within. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 20 (3), 165-180. DOI:

Janis, R. A., Burlingame, G. M., & Olsen, J. A. (2018). Developing a therapeutic relationship monitoring system for group treatment. Psychotherapy, 55, 105–115. DOI:

Jensen, J., & Burlingame, G. (2018). An item reduction analysis of the Group Questionnaire. Psychotherapy, 55(2), 144-150. DOI:

Johnson, J. E., Burlingame, G. M., Strauß, B., & Bormann, B. (2008). Die therapeutischen Beziehungen in der Gruppenpsychotherapie. Gruppenpsychotherapie und Gruppendynamik, 44(1), 52-89. DOI:

Johnson, J. E., Burlingame, G. M., Olsen, J. A., Davies, D. R., & Gleave, R. L. (2005). Group Climate, Cohesion, Alliance, and Empathy in Group Psychotherapy: Multilevel Structural Equation Models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(3), 310. DOI:

Kivlighan, D. M., Lo Coco, G., Gullo, S. (2015). Is there a group effect? It depends on how you ask the question: Intraclass correlations for California Psychotherapy Alliance Scale–Group items. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(1), 73-78. doi.10.1037/cou0000046 DOI:

Kivlighan, D. M., Lo Coco, G., Gullo, S., Pazzagli, C., & Mazzeschi, C. (2017a). Attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance: Member attachment fit with their group and group relationships. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 67, 223–239. DOI:

Kivlighan, D., Lo Coco, G., Oieni, V., Gullo, S., Pazzagli, C., & Mazzeschi, C. (2017b). All Bonds Are Not the Same: A Response Surface Analysis of the Perceptions of Positive Bonding Relationships in Therapy Groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 21, 159-177. DOI:

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 group relationship. Psychotherapy Research, 23(3), 344-354. DOI:

Lo Coco, G., Gullo, S., & Kivlighan, D. M., Jr. (2012). Examining patients’ and other group members’ agreement about their alliance to the group as a whole and changes in patient symptoms using response surface analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 197–207. http:// DOI:

Lo Coco, G., Gullo, S., Di Fratello, C. Giordano, C. & Kivlighan, D. M. Jr. (2016a). Group Relationships in Early and Late Sessions and Improvement in Interpersonal Problems. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(4), pp. 419-428. DOI:

Lo Coco, G., Gullo, S., Oieni, V., Giannone, F., Di Blasi, M., & Kivlighan Jr, D. M. (2016b). The relationship between attachment dimensions and perceptions of group relationships over time: An actor–partner interdependence analysis. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20(4), 276–293. DOI:

Lo Coco, G., Gullo, S., Profita, G., Pazzagli, C., Mazzeschi, C., & Kivlighan, D. M., Jr. (2019). The Codevelopment of Group Relationships: The Role of Individual Group Member’s and Other Group Members’ Mutual Influence and Shared Group Environment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66, 640-649. DOI:

Lo Coco, G., Tasca, G. A., Hewitt, P., Mikail, S. F., & Kivlighan, Jr., D. M. (2019). Ruptures and repairs of group therapy alliance. An untold story in psychotherapy research. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 22(1), 58-70. doi: 10.4081/ripppo.2019.352 DOI:

Marogna C., Caccamo F. (2014) “Analysis of the process in brief psychotherapy group: the role of therapeutic factors”. Research in Psychotherapy, Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 17, pp. 43-51. DOI: 10.7411/RP.2014.019

Marmarosh, C. (2018). Introduction to Special Issue: Feedback in Group Psychotherapy, Psychotherapy, 55, 101–106. DOI:

Marziali, E., Munroe-Blum, H., & McCleary, L. (1997). The contribution of group cohesion and group alliance to the outcome of group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 47, 475-497. DOI:

Piper, W. E., Marrache, M., Lacroix, R., Richardsen, A. M., & Jones, B. D. (1983). Cohesion as a basic bond in groups. Human Relations, 36, 93-108. DOI:

Popolo, R., MacBeth, A., Canfora, F., Rebecchi, D., Toselli, C., Salvatore, G., & Dimaggio, G. (2019). Metacognitive Interpersonal Therapy in group (MIT‐G) for young adults with personality disorders: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 92(3), 342-358. DOI:

Thayer, S. D., & Burlingame, G. (2014). The Validity of the Group Questionnaire: Construct Clarity or Construct Drift? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 18, 318–332. DOI:

van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89-99. DOI:

Yalom, I. D., & Leszcz, M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Group Questionnaire, group process, group psychotherapy evaluation, therapeutic relationship, cross-cultural validity
  • Abstract views: 160

  • PDF: 89
  • HTML: 0
How to Cite
Giannone, F., Guarnaccia, C., Gullo, S., Di Blasi, M., Giordano, C., Lo Coco, G., & Burlingame, G. (2020). Italian adaptation of the Group Questionnaire: validity and factorial structure. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 23(2).