Testing a Single-Item Visual Analogue Scale as a Proxy for Cohesiveness in Group Psychotherapy Matthew J. Hornsey, Sara Olsen, and Fiona Kate Barlow The University of Queensland Tian P. S. Oei The University of Queensland and Toowong Private Hospital, Brisbane, Australia Group cohesion is one factor that is widely suggested to be important in producing clinically meaningful change in group psychotherapy. However, the construct has proved difficult to define, and in an effort to capture the construct’s multidimen- sionality, contemporary measures have become long, cognitively demanding, and challenging for people with limited literacy. In response to this, we test a single- item visual analogue scale that provides a simple, intuitive, time-efficient, and user-friendly proxy for the cohesion construct. The Group Entitativity Measure– Group Psychotherapy (GEM-GP) was validated in a clinical sample of individuals who completed a group cognitive– behavioral therapy course for depression. GEM-GP scores correlated highly with a lengthier, traditional measure of group cohesion and were just as predictive of outcomes as a multi-item, traditional measure. The GEM-GP is a valid, user-friendly, and brief proxy for the cohesion construct in the group psychotherapy context. Keywords: group psychotherapy, cohesion, visual analogue scale There is good evidence that group psycho- therapy is effective in producing significant and clinically meaningful improvements in a variety of clinical disorders (Jo ´nsson & Hougaard, 2009). The mechanisms of change within the group context, however, remain unclear (Oei & Browne, 2006). Cohesiveness is one factor that is widely purported to be important in facilitat- ing meaningful clinical change. It has been de- scribed as the “bedrock of the group experi- ence” (Butler & Fuhriman, 1983, p. 500) and for Yalom (1995) is considered a central cura- tive factor in group psychotherapy. The assumption that cohesiveness is impor- tant in facilitating clinically meaningful change has been difficult to test, however, partly be- cause the field has not rallied around one ac- cepted measure of cohesiveness. One clear trend has been the shift away from unidimen- sional measures of cohesion to measures that incorporate multiple dimensions. A brief sum- mary of proposed multidimensional measures of cohesion is provided by Hornsey, Dwyer, and Oei (2007). What is clear from this summary is that there is still a degree of confusion about what the term cohesion is supposed to represent. It has been variously operationalized as auton- omy, affiliation, involvement, spontaneity, sup- port, insight, variety, interest, involvement, trust, cooperation, expressed caring, focus, in- dividual attraction, perceived instrumental value, support for risk-taking behaviors, bond- ing, listening, empathy, self-disclosure, feed- back, and process performance (e.g., Braaten, 1991; Budman et al., 1987; Silbergeld, Koenig, Manderscheid, Meeker, & Hornung, 1975; Stokes, Fuehrer, & Childs, 1983; see Burlin- game, McClendon, & Alonso, 2011, for a recent discussion). In short, just about anything that This article was published Online First July 11, 2011. Matthew J. Hornsey, Sara Olsen, and Fiona Kate Barlow, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Bris- bane, Queensland, Australia; Tian P. S. Oei, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland and CBT Unit, Toowong Private Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. Professor Tian P. S. Oei was a full time academic at the University of Queensland and had a small (maximum of 6 hours per week for about 45 weeks per year) where he provided cognitive behavior therapy treatment at the Toowong Private Hospital to patients. He received fees directly from the patients and paid expenses from the fees received. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Matthew J. Hornsey, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072. E-mail: m.hornsey@uq.edu.au Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice © 2011 American Psychological Association 2012, Vol. 16, No. 1, 80 –90 1089-2699/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0024545 80