Abstract Extensive research has been conducted out on the construct of therapeutic alliance. With the growing emphasis on evidence-based practice in psychology it is vital that measures used in both clinical and research settings are empirically well-suited for the population under investigation. However, many measurement issues related to the reliability and validity of the alliance construct remain unaddressed or unresolved. Two studies were designed to add to the scientific evidence on the therapeutic alliance by establishing empirical evidence of the psychometric properties of this construct’s most commonly used measures, with the intention of identifying the most psychometrically sound alliance measures. This was first done by systematically reviewing the literature to identify studies that used the most commonly used alliance measures. Next, key psychometric properties of each measure (internal reliability and predictive validity) were reviewed to determine if the alliance was assessed in the context of individual adult psychotherapy. In the first study, I conducted a reliability generalization analysis to (a) estimate the average reliability coefficient of each alliance measure identified in the systematic review and (b) examine the potential influence that study characteristics may have had on the reliability estimates. Six different alliance measures were included (Agnew Relationship Measure, California Psychotherapy Alliance Scales, Counselor Rating Form, Penn Alliance Scales, Therapeutic Bond Scale, Working Alliance Inventory), in various formats and rater versions, resulting in a total of 17 alliance measure variants for this first analysis. In the second study, I conducted a validity generalization analysis using only those studies from the first study that were identified as containing outcome data. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the alliance-outcome effect sizes that have been reported for the most commonly used therapeutic alliance measures and to assess the potential impact study characteristics may have on those effect sizes. Five different alliance measures (California Psychotherapy Alliance Scales, Counselor Rating Form, Penn Alliance Scales, Therapeutic Bond Scale, Working Alliance Inventory, Vanderbilt Therapeutic Alliance Scale) in various formats and rater versions, resulting in a total of 15 alliance measure variants were included in this analysis. This second study was different from previous alliance-outcome meta-analyses as I only included studies that (a) could be identified as providing psychotherapy, as opposed to other mental health services, (b) assessed the alliance from individual adult psychotherapy, (c) were identified as using the most commonly used alliance measures, and (d) measured the alliance at the midpoint of treatment, or earlier. This second study also differed from previous meta-analyses as I conducted separate analyses for correlational data and partial correlational data. The reliability generalization study found that majority of the alliance measures were good choices for assessing the alliance based on their mean reliability coefficients. The validity generalization study found relatively no difference in the early alliance’s ability to predict treatment outcomes in individual adult psychotherapy between full correlation data (r = .24) and partial correlation data (r = .23). There was also no difference found among the different alliance measures, or their variants, in their ability to predict treatment outcomes, suggesting that no one alliance measure is statistically better at predicting outcomes. The results from both studies suggest that, based on their overall level of reliability as well as their ability to predict treatment outcomes, both researcher and clinicians should consider these measures, with few exceptions, as comparably good choices for assessing the alliance in adult individual psychotherapy.

No description available.

This dissertation focused on an increasingly prevalent phenomenon in today’s global business environment—strategic alliance portfolio. Building on resource-based view, resource dependency theory and real options theory, this dissertation adopted a multi-dimensional perspective to examine the performance implications, strategic antecedents of alliance portfolio configuration, and its strategic effects on firms’ decision-making on their continuing foreign expansion. The dissertation consisted of three interrelated essays, each of which dealt with a specific research question. In the first essay I applied a two-dimensional construct that embraces both alliance relations’ and alliance partners’ attributes to illustrate alliance portfolio configuration. Based on this framework, a longitudinal study was conducted attempting to explore the performance properties of alliance portfolio configuration. The results revealed that alliance diversity and partner diversity have different relative contributions to firms’ economic performance. The relationship between alliance portfolio configuration and firm performance was shaped by degree of multinationality in a curvilinear pattern. The second essay attempted to identify the firm level driving forces of alliance portfolio configuration and how these forces interacting with firms’ internationalization influence firms’ strategic choices on alliance portfolio configuration. The empirical results indicated that past alliance experience, slack resource and firms’ brand images are three critical determinants shaping alliance portfolios, but those shaping relationships are conditioned by firms’ multinationality. The third essay primarily employed real options theory to build a conceptual framework, revealing how country-, alliance portfolio-, firm-, and industry level factors and their interactions influence firms’ strategic decision-making on post-entry continuing expansion in foreign markets. The two empirical studies were resided in global hospitality and travel industries and use panel data to test the relevant theoretical models. Overall, the dissertation advanced and enriched the theoretical domain of alliance portfolio. It particularly shed valuable insights on three fundamental questions in the domain of alliance portfolio research, namely “if and how alliance portfolios contribute to firms’ economic performance”; “what determines the appearance of alliance portfolios; and “how alliance portfolios affect firms’ strategic decision-making”. This dissertation also extended the international business and strategic management research on service multinationals’ foreign expansion and performance.

No description available.

Why do some allies restructure their existing alliance relationships which they once favored, but some do not? In what ways do allies restructure their alliances? Historically interstate military alliances change their original agreements more than they remain the same, and the average duration of bilateral alliances is less than a decade. Theoretically, previous works have paid great attention mostly to the formation and duration of alliances. Answers to the above basic questions have been largely indeterminate, despite the fact that when allies change their original agreements, it reshapes the behaviors of both allies and non-allies. This study argues that when a state grows more powerful relative to its neighbors and external powers; and experiences a domestic regime change, the state is likely to restructure its exiting alliance relationship. These external and internal changes since the alliance formation cause the state’s original preference on the arms-and-allies balance to shift, and the state has greater incentive to restructure the existing alliance by way of dealignment, expiration, or renewal. In order to test the argument, this study first provides the quantitative results by testing 142 post-WWII alliances formed from 1946 to 2000, and identifies the statistically significant and substantial effects of three factors, capabilities increase, regime change (democratization and authoritarianization), and government change (both leadership and supporting coalition change), on the state’s alliance restructuring. Then this study qualitatively tests the quantitative findings and traces the causal process through case studies for three U.S. alliances in East Asia (the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan). The Philippine alliance restructuring in 1992 is examined as a typical case demonstrating that the argument empirically works. Then this study investigates why South Korea did not restructure the alliance with the U.S. in the 1990s even though the external and internal factors suggest that it would restructure. Lastly, the U.S.-Japan alliance case in 2009-2010 is examined to assess the explanatory power of the argument beyond the data population. An alliance restructuring can significantly affect an individual state’s security positively or negatively, therefore state leaders must continue to pay a close attention to the management of alliances.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The choice of appropriate collaborative partners has consistently been reported as a key issue for contemporary managers. This study reports findings from a study which explored the process and criteria of partner selection - how and why partners are chosen. The results show multiple cycles of deal-making, partnership roles and organizational approval. Partner choice criteria focused on partnership requirements, but was influenced by additional factors. These results suggest that partner selection may be much more complex than previously recognized and could be better described as partner negotiation. <br /><br /> The researcher reviewed recent literature on partnerships, decision-making, and partner selection. Concepts from this previous work were updated with data from three initial interviewees experienced in university-industry partnerships. A conceptual Partner Negotiation Model was developed including three cycles of Deal-Making, Organizational Approval, and Partner Role/Selection. Our hypothesized Partner Choice Criteria centred on requirements, but were influenced by resource availability, social network, reputation, politics, and ambiguity. Two Canada-wide distance education consortia were identified as large-scale case studies for investigation of the research theory. A total of 34 informants were contacted. Written business plans, contracts, documents, partner network diagrams and 231 archival e-mails from 36 correspondents were collected and analysed for the two consortia. <br /><br /> The results showed strong support for partner selection included in negotiation cycles of deal-making and organizational approval. Partner choice criteria supported the need to meet documented requirements, but was also strongly influenced by resource availability, social network, and reputation. Additional issues of interest to the interviewees were motivation, operations, unit of partner, self-sustaining income, and integration to one consortium. As well, the Case Study Narratives offered deep, interesting insight into two specific cases of Canadian consortia. <br /><br /> The findings suggest that the formation of partnerships and the process of partner selection are both very complex. This research has provided new insights linking business negotiation concepts with partner selection. A model has been developed for viewing partner selection as negotiation. Three negotiation cycles of deal-making, organizational approval, and partner role/selection have been proposed. The research has identified four criteria that influence why specific partners are chosen ? requirements, resource availability, social network, and reputation. Finally, based on the complexities and issues from this work, a number of ideas for future research have been summarized.