Testing an Alliance-Focused Dialectical Behaviour Therapy Training for Borderline Personality Disorder

Not Applicable

Recruiting

• Conditions: Borderline Personality Disorder; Emotion Dysregulation

• Registration Number: NCT07119541
• Lead Sponsor: York University

Brief Summary

The study evaluates the feasibility, acceptability, and effect sizes of two alliance-focused dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) training interventions to improve therapists' abilities to recognize and respond to alliance ruptures with clients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either a 4-week training as usual (TAU), which include didactic training plus reflective practice (i.e., thinking about past actions to gain insight for future actions) or a 4-week didactic training plus deliberate practice training (i.e., setting individualized training goals, skills coaching, and opportunities for repeated practice with expert feedback). A pre-post design will be used to assess effect sizes for change in participants' abilities to recognize and respond to alliance ruptures. Therapist characteristics will be assessed to determine moderating effects on training outcome. Feasibility and acceptability of the training intervention will be assessed following the trainings.

Detailed Description

Borderline personality disorder is a severe psychological disorder characterized by a pattern of emotional dysregulation, interpersonal difficulties, and impulsivity. The therapeutic alliance is the cornerstone of effective psychotherapy with clients with BPD and is positively associated with treatment retention and clinical improvement. However, the therapeutic alliance in BPD treatments can be difficult to form and maintain. BPD symptoms such as emotional instability, heightened emotional reactivity, greater susceptibility to negative emotions, and interpersonal sensitivity can impact the establishment of a strong therapeutic alliance. Additionally, when clients are emotionally dysregulated or presenting with high-risk behaviors, therapists are especially vulnerable to becoming reactive and engaging in therapy-interfering behaviors that can elicit or exacerbate alliance ruptures (i.e., tension, strain, or breakdown in the therapeutic alliance). Research suggests that therapists' abilities to effectively repair alliance ruptures when they occur is critical for positive clinical outcomes in BPD treatments.

Despite the importance of alliance rupture responsiveness in BPD treatments, many of the current methods employed in psychotherapy training do not adequately develop these therapeutic skills. Psychotherapy training typically focuses on the therapeutic relationship in an unstructured, non-systematic way, using instructional or supervision-based methods despite evidence that suggests this type of passive learning is ineffective for skill development. Recent advancements in psychotherapy training have begun to focus on improving therapists' skills in navigating alliance rupture and repair, however these trainings are often time intensive and do not sufficiently target the unique client needs and therapist challenges that emerge in BPD treatments.

The primary aim of this pilot randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and effect sizes of two alliance-focused DBT training interventions to improve therapists' abilities to recognize and respond to alliance ruptures with BPD clients. Additionally, we will examine whether specific therapist characteristics moderate the impact of training. Up to eighty psychotherapists will be randomly assigned to receive either a 4-week training as usual, which includes alliance-focused training plus reflective practice or a 4-week alliance-focused training plus deliberate practice training. Both trainings include the same content but employ different training methods (i.e., deliberate practice versus reflective practice). Change in skill acquisition related to recognizing and responding to alliance ruptures will be assessed based on a set of performance tasks (interpersonal facilitative skills, process recognition, emotion recognition). Therapist characteristics of emotion regulation, empathy, emotional reactivity, and humility will be assessed by self-report to determine change in emotion regulation, humility, interpersonal reactivity, and empathy, and the moderating effects of these characteristics on training outcome. Finally, participants will be asked about the feasibility and acceptability of the training interventions.

Study Timeline

• Study First Submitted: 2025-07-29
• Status Verified: 2025-08
• Study Start: 2025-08-01
• Study First Submitted QC: 2025-08-05
• Last Update Submitted: 2025-08-05
• Study First Posted: 2025-08-13
• Last Update Posted: 2025-08-13
• Primary Completion: 2026-01-31
• Study Completion: 2026-01-31

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: RECRUITING
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 80

Inclusion Criteria

1. Participants must be over the age of 18
2. Participants must be regulated health professionals in Canada who are authorized to deliver psychotherapy as part of their scope of practice, or a students in training under the supervision of a regulated health professional in Canada authorized to deliver psychotherapy as part of their scope of practice.
3. Participants must currently be providing psychotherapy
4. Participants must have access to reliable internet service
5. Participants must indicate that they are available to attend the training intervention times provided
6. Participants must agree to participate in the 4 weekly training intervention
7. Participants must state willingness to comply with study procedures (i.e., to complete pre- and post-intervention research evaluations, and between training homework exercises.

Exclusion Criteria

• None

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Facilitative Interpersonal Skills Task (FIS)	Administered at baseline (pre-intervention) and at 4 weeks (post-intervention).	An 8-item video vignette task used to assess ability to respond effectively to challenging client interactions in therapy. Scores range from 56 to 280, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of facilitative interpersonal skills.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Process Recognition Task (PRT)	Administered at baseline (pre-intervention) and at 4 weeks (post-intervention).	A 12-item video vignette task used to assess ability to accurately detect alliance ruptures. Scores range from 0-12, with higher scores reflecting greater accuracy of rupture detection.
Jerusalem Facial Expressions of Emotion Task (JeFEE) - Short Version	Administered at baseline (pre-intervention) and at 4 weeks (post-intervention).	A 28-item video vignette task used to assess ability to accurately identify emotional expression. Scores range from 0 to 28, with higher scores reflecting greater accuracy of emotion recognition.
Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale (CIHS)	Administered at baseline (pre-intervention) and at 4 weeks (post-intervention).	A 22-item self-report measure used to assess intellectual humility. Scores range from 22-110, with higher score indicating greater intellectual humility.
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)	Administered at baseline (pre-intervention) and at 4 weeks (post-intervention).	A 28-item self-report measure that assesses empathy. Scores range from 28 to 140, with higher scores reflecting greater empathy.
Emotional Reactivity Scale (ERS)	Administered at baseline (pre-intervention) and at 4 weeks (post-intervention).	A 21-item self-report measure that assesses emotional sensitivity, intensity, and persistence. Scores range from 0 to 84, with higher scores reflecting greater emotional reactivity
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS)	Administered at baseline (pre-intervention) and at 4 weeks (post-intervention).	A 36-item self-report measure that assesses difficulties with emotion regulation. Scores range from 36 to 180, with higher scores reflecting greater difficulties in regulating emotions.
Acceptability, Feasibility, and Appropriateness Scale (AFAS)	Administered at 4 weeks (post-intervention).	A 14-item self-report measure that assesses implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness. Scores range from 14 to 70, with higher scores reflecting greater acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness of the training intervention.

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

York University; 🇨🇦 Toronto, Ontario, Canada