Perceptions of the Ways of Mattering by people with mental illness.

In this study, we presented evidence of the factor structure of the Ways of Mattering questionnaire when administered to individuals experiencing mental illness who were registered in vocational programs. The reliability, construct, and convergent validities of this questionnaire were demonstrated using CFA and Cronbach's alpha coefficient and by using the WAI for analyzing the convergent validity. Future research could involve administering the Ways of Mattering to individuals at different times during the counseling relationship to document and analyze changes and to better understand the working alliance foundation and the associated work outcomes.

References

Amundson, N. E. (1993). Mattering: A foundation for employment counseling and training. Journal of Employment Counseling, 30, 146-152.

Amundson, N. E. (2003). Active engagement-Enhancing the career counselling process. Richmond, British Columbia, Canada: Ergon Communications.

Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS: Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.

Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16, 252-260.

Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Connolly, K. M., & Myers, J. E. (2003). Wellness and mattering: The role of holistic factors in job satisfaction. Journal of Employment Counseling, 40, 152-160.

Corbiere, M., Bisson, J., Lauzon, S., & Ricard, N. (2006). Factorial validation of a French short-form of the Working Alliance Inventory. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 15, 36-45.

Corbiere, M., Bond, G. R, Goldner, E. M., & Ptasinski, T. (2005). The fidelity of supported employment implementation in Canada and the United States. Psychiatric Services, 56, 1444-1447.

Corbiere, M., & Goldner, E. M. (2003). Work integration of people with severe mental illness: Determining the best environmental and individual ingredients for success. Study funded by the Canadian Psychiatric Research Foundation, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Day, S. (2004). Theory and design in counseling and psychotherapy. Boston: Lahaska Press.

Gaston, L. (1990). The concept of the alliance and its role in psychotherapy: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Psychotherapy, 27, 143-153.

Gehrs, M., & Goering, P. (1994). The relationship between the working alliance and rehabilitation outcomes of schizophrenia. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 18, 43-54.

Henry, W. P., Strupp, H. H., Schacht, T. E., & Gaston, L. (1994). Psychodynamic approaches. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp. 467-508). New York: Wiley.

Hofmann, R. (1995). Establishing factor validity using variable reduction in confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 572-582.

Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. S. (1989). Development and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 223-233.

Horvath, A. O., & Luborsky, L. (1993). The role of therapeutic alliance in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 561-573.

Horvath, A. O., & Symonds, B. D. (1991). Relation between working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 139-149.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Lecomte, C., & Lecomte, T. (1999). Au dela et en deca des techniques cognitives behaviorales dans le traitement des troubles severes: Les facteurs communs [Beyond and underneath cognitive behavioral techniques in treating severe disorders: Common factors]. Revue Sante Mentale au Quebec, 24, 19-36.

Lecomte, T., Corbiere, M., & Laisne, F. (2006). Investigating self-esteem in individuals with schizophrenia: Relevance of the Self-Esteem Rating Scale. Psychiatry Research, 143, 99-108.

Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 832-837.

Meara, N. M., & Patton, M. J. (1994). Contributions of the working alliance in the practice of career counseling. The Career Development Quarterly, 43, 161-177.

Neale, M. S., & Rosenheck, R. A. (1995). Therapeutic alliance and outcome in a VA intensive care management program. Psychiatric Services, 46, 719-721.

Nugent, W., & Thomas, J. (1993). Validation of a clinical measure of self-esteem. Research and Social Work Practice, 3, 208-218.

Rosenberg, M., & McCullough, B. C. (1981). Mattering: Inferred significance and mental health among adolescents. Research in Community Mental Health, 2, 163-182.

Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A. Q., & Chickering, A. W. (1989). Improving higher education environments for adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Skovholt, T. M., Ronnestad, M. H., & Jennings, L. (1997). Searching for expertise in counseling, psychotherapy, and professional psychology. Educational Psychology Review, 9, 361-369.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2003). Supported employment implementation resource kit. Retrieved October 22, 2006, from http://download.ncadi.samhsa.gov/ken/pdf/toolkits/employment/02.SE_Users.pdf

Svensson, B., & Hansson, L. (1999). Therapeutic alliance in cognitive therapy for schizophrenic and other long-term mentally ill patients: Development and relationship to outcome in an in-patient treatment programme. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 99, 281-287.

Tracey, T. J., & Kokotovic, A. M. (1989). Factor structure of the Working Alliance Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 1, 207-210.

Tyrrell, C. L., Dozier, M., Teague, G. B., & Fallot, R. D. (1999). Effective treatment relationships for persons with serious psychiatric disorders: The importance of attachment states of mind. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 725-733.

APPENDIX

Items of the Ways of Mattering Adapted to Employment Specialists

1. My employment specialist takes my feelings into account.

2. My employment specialist treats me like a number.

3. My employment specialist greets me in a way that makes me feel that I am not important.

4. My employment specialist encourages me to give ideas.

5. My employment specialist has little interest in following my progress.

6. My employment specialist is indifferent to my contributions.

7. My employment specialist supports me in reaching my goals.

8. My employment specialist doesn't listen to what I have to say.

9. My employment specialist helps me feel at ease.

10. My employment specialist doesn't depend on my participation.

11. My employment specialist takes into account what I want to do.

12. My employment specialist notices how I am feeling.

13. My employment specialist relies on my support.

14. My employment specialist cares little about my well-being.

15. My employment specialist isn't interested in hearing about my future plans.

16. My employment specialist believes in me.

17. My employment specialist will continue to be interested in me even when we go our separate ways.

18. My employment specialist doesn't make an effort to make me feel welcome.

19. My employment specialist doesn't appreciate what I have accomplished.

20. My employment specialist follows up to see how I am doing.

21. My employment specialist acknowledges my presence when entering the room.

22. My employment specialist is not open to accept my suggestions. (a)

23. My employment specialist is careful to get my input before making decisions that affect me.

24. My employment specialist has little personal interest in keeping track of me.

(a) This item was revised after considering confirmatory factor analysis results.

Marc Corbiere, Institute of Health Promotion Research, and Norman E. Amundson, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, both at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Marc Corbiere is now at Department of Rehabilitation, Universite de Sherbrooke, Longueuil (Quebec) Canada. The authors thank the clients from different supported employment programs implemented in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, for kindly taking part in this study. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marc Corbiere, Department of Rehabilitation, Universite de Sherbrooke, CAPRIT, 1111, St. Charles Ouest #101, Longueuil (Quebec) J4K 5G4, Canada (e-mail: marc.corbiere@usherbrooke.ca). TABLE 1 Results From the Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Ways of Mattering (N = 196) Model df [chi square] [chi square]/df 1. Four content domains 252 958.3 3.80

noncorrelated 2. Four content domains correlated 246 542.4 2.20 3. One global dimension 252 546.0 2.17 4. Two-factor solution isolating 251 365.0 1.45

the respective positively and

negatively worded items 5. Adjusted two-factor solution 228 302.6 1.45

isolating the respective

positively and negatively worded

items (without Item 22 and error

correlations between Items 15

and 19) Model NNFI CFI IFI RMSEA 1. Four content domains .31 .37 .38 .12