Evidence Hub

Alliance Ruptures and Psychotherapy Outcomes: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Their Association

Babl A, Gómez Penedo JM, Nimphy C, Keßel M, Crainic C, Boendermaker N, Eubanks CF

Journal of clinical psychology, 2026

301 participants

Abstract

Objective: Although two meta-analyses have examined the relationship between rupture repair and treatment outcome, no meta-analysis to date has investigated the association between alliance ruptures and treatment outcome. Numerous primary studies have explored this relationship; however, the methods used to assess ruptures vary considerably. These include direct measures, such as ratings of the occurrence, frequency, or intensity of ruptures by observers, patients, or therapists, and indirect measures, such as fluctuations in alliance ratings. This methodological heterogeneity may contribute to inconsistent findings across studies. The present meta-analysis sought to clarify the association between alliance ruptures and treatment outcomes by including only studies that assessed ruptures using direct measures.

Methods: After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, four publications remained reporting 18 effect sizes of the associations between ruptures and outcomes. Those provided data from N = 301 clients undergoing psychotherapy. Multilevel models with a three-level structure with restricted maximum likelihood to estimate the aggregated effect size of ruptures on outcome were conducted.

Results: The results showed a significant aggregated effect size of z = -0.22, SE = 0.04, 95 CI [-0.303, -0.133]; t(17) = -5.40, p < 0.001, r = -0.21, indicating that alliance ruptures were associated with poorer therapy outcomes.

Conclusions: A small but consistent negative association…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 301 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free