The Group Cohesiveness Scale (GCS, 7 items) measures patient-rated group cohesiveness. The English version of the scale has demonstrated good psychometric properties. This study describes the validation of the Czech version of the GCS. A total of 369 patients participated in the study. Unlike the original study, the ordinal confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a two-dimensional solution (RMSEA = 0.075; TLI = 0.986). The analysis demonstrated the existence of two moderately to highly associated (r = 0.79) domains of group cohesiveness-affective and behavioral. The two-dimensional model was invariant across genders, age, education, and time (retest after 6 weeks) up to factor means level. Internal consistency reached satisfactory values for both domains (affective, ω = 0.86; behavioral, ω = 0.81). In terms of convergent validity, only weak association was found between the GCS domains and the group working alliance measured by the Group Outcome Rating Scale (GSRS). This is the first revision of the factor structure of the GCS in the European context. The scale showed that the Czech version of the GCS is a valid and reliable brief tool for measuring both aspects of group cohesiveness.

Department of Psychology Faculty of Social Studies Brno Czechia

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Ashby K. M., Collins D. L., Helms J. E., Manlove J. (2018). Let’s talk about race: evaluating a college interracial discussion group on race. J. Multicult. Counsel. Dev. 46 97–114. 10.1002/jmcd.12095 DOI

Barsade S. G., Knight A. P. (2015). Group affect. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2 21–46. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111316 DOI

Budman S. H., Soldz S., Demby A., Davis M., Merry J. (1993). What is cohesiveness? An empirical examination. Small Group Res. 24 199–216. 10.1177/1046496493242003 DOI

Budman S. H., Soldz S., Demby A., Feldstein M., Springer T., Davis M. S. (1989). Cohesion, alliance and outcome in group psychotherapy. Psychiatry 52 339–350. 10.1080/00332747.1989.11024456 PubMed DOI

Carron A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: interpretations and considerations. J. Sport Psychol. 4 123–138.

Carron A. V., Widmeyer W. N., Brawley L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: the group environment questionnaire. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 7 244–266. 10.1123/jsp.7.3.244 DOI

Cota A. A., Evans C. R., Dion K. L., Kilik L., Longman R. S. (1995). The structure of group cohesion. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 21 572–580. 10.1177/0146167295216003 DOI

Evans N. J., Jarvis P. A. (1980). Group cohesion: a review and reevaluation. Small Group Behav. 11 359–370. 10.1177/104649648001100401 DOI

Hogg M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: a critical review and some new directions. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 4 85–111. 10.1080/14792779343000031 DOI

Hooper D., Coughlan J., Mullen M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 6 53–60.

Horvath A. O., Greenberg L. S. (1989). Development and validation of the working alliance inventory. J. Counsel. Psychol. 36:223 10.1037/0022-0167.36.2.223 DOI

Hu L. T., Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 6 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 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. J. Couns. Psychol. 52 310–321. 10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.310 DOI

McDonald R. P. (1999). Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.

Kenny D. A., Kaniskan B., McCoach D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociol. Methods Res. 44 486–507. 10.1177/0049124114543236 DOI

Kipnes D. R., Piper W. E., Joyce A. S. (2002). Cohesion and outcome in short-term psychodynamic groups for complicated grief. Int. J. Group Psychother. 52 483–509. 10.1521/ijgp.52.4.483.45525 PubMed DOI

Lawler E. J., Thye S. R., Yoon J. (2000). Emotion and group cohesion in productive exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 106 616–657. 10.1086/318965 DOI

Lese K. P., MacNair-Semands R. R. (2000). The therapeutic factors inventory: development of a scale. Group 24 303–317. 10.1023/A:1026616626780 DOI

MacKenzie K. R. (1983). “The clinical application of group measure,” in Advances in Group Psychotherapy: Integrating Research and Practice, eds Dies R. R., MacKenzie K. R. (New York: International Universities Press; ), 159–170.

Mudrack P. E. (1989). Defining group cohesiveness: a legacy of confusion? Small Group Behav. 20 37–49. 10.1177/104649648902000103 DOI

Poyner-Del Vento P., Goy E., Baddeley J., Libet J. (2018). The caregivers’ attachment and relationship education class: a new and promising group therapy for caregivers of individuals with Parkinson’s disease. J. Couple Relationsh. Ther. 17 97–113. 10.1080/15332691.2017.1341356 DOI

Quirk K., Miller S., Duncan B., Owen J. (2013). Group session rating scale: preliminary psychometrics in substance abuse group interventions. Counsel. Psychother. Res. 13 194–200. 10.1080/14733145.2012.744425 DOI

R Core Team (2020). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Raykov T., Marcoulides G. A. (2011). Introduction to Psychometric Theory. London: Routledge.

Roark A. E., Sharah H. S. (1989). Factors related to group cohesiveness. Small Group Behav. 20 62–69. 10.1177/104649648902000105 DOI

Rosseel Y. (2012). Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). J. Stat. Softw. 48 1–36. 10.1002/9781119579038.ch1 DOI

Tulin M., Pollet T. V., Lehmann-Willenbrock N. (2018). Perceived group cohesion versus actual social structure: a study using social network analysis of egocentric Facebook networks. Soc. Sci. Res. 74 161–175. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.04.004 PubMed DOI

Wongpakaran T., Wongpakaran N., Intachote-Sakamoto R., Boripuntakul T. (2013). The Group Cohesiveness Scale (GCS) for psychiatric inpatients. Perspect. Psychiatr. Care 49 58–64. 10.1111/j.1744-6163.2012.00342.x PubMed DOI

Wu H., Estabrook R. (2016). Identification of confirmatory factor analysis models of different levels of invariance for ordered categorical outcomes. Psychometrika 81 1014–1045. 10.1007/s11336-016-9506-0 PubMed DOI PMC