Objective: This study presents the revised version of the Collaborative Interactions Scale (CIS) [Colli, A., & Lingiardi, V. (2009). The Collaborative Interactions Scale: A new transcript-based method for the assessment of therapeutic alliance ruptures and resolutions in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 19(6), 718–734.], an observer-rated measure for the assessment of therapeutic-alliance ruptures and resolutions. Intensive use of the previous scale resulted in three criticisms: (i) excessive time required to perform evaluations, (ii) the low occurrence of some items, and (iii) the scale’s low capacity to capture some patient–therapist interactions in fine detail. In this study, we aimed to describe the scale revision process and evaluate interrater reliability and scale validity by comparing sessions of patients with and without personality disorders (PDs). Method: Three raters conducted a blind evaluation of a sample of 60 sessions (180 segments; 3607 narrative units) with 30 patients (15 had a PD diagnosis and 15 had a DSM-5 clinical syndrome diagnosis without a PD). Results: Interrater reliability results ranged from acceptable to excellent and were comparable to those of the former version. Patients with PDs showed a greater number of alliance ruptures and a smaller number of collaborative processes than patients without PDs. Moreover, therapists presented more negative interventions with the PD sample than with the non-PD sample. Conclusions: The results indicate that the revised CIS is a reliable rating system that is useful for both empirical research and clinical assessments. Clinical or methodological significance of this article: The CIS-R is a reliable rating system that is suitable for both empirical research and clinical assessment. It is useful for recognizing rupture and resolution processes, both in clinical everyday practice and in psychotherapists’ training. Application of the CIS-R promotes clinical reflection on the therapeutic action used to manage ruptures in a session.

Background: Mentalizing, the mental capacity to understand oneself and others in terms of mental states, has been found to be reduced in several mental disorders. Some studies have suggested that eating disorders (EDs) may also be associated with impairments in mentalizing. The aim of this work is to investigate the possible presence of mentalizing subtypes in a sample of patients with EDs.Method: A sample of patients with eating disorders (N = 157) completed a battery of measures assessing mentalization and related variables, including the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ), the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Strategies (DERS), the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Clinicians rated patients in relation to imbalances in different dimensions of mentalization to prementalizing modes and attachment style by using the Mentalization Imbalances Scale, the Modes of Mentalization Scale (MMS), and the Adult Attachment Questionnaire. A latent profile analysis was conducted to test the possible presence of different subgroups. MANOVA was used to test the possible differences between the four mentalizing profiles in relation to emotion dysregulation (DERS), empathy (IRI), and adequate and impairments in mentalizing (MMS and RFQ).Results: The latent profile analysis suggested the presence of four different profiles in relation to impairments in the dimensions of mentalization: (1) affective/self/automatic imbalances, (2) external imbalance, (3) cognitive/self/automatic imbalances, and (4) cognitive/other/automatic imbalances. Patients belonging to profile 1 are characterized by the prevalence of affective mentalization that overwhelms the capacity to reflect on mental states with an imbalance on the self-dimension; profile 2 patients are excessively focused on the external cues of mentalization; profile 3 patients are characterized by an over-involvement on the cognitive and self-facets of mentalization, with an impairment in adopting the other mind perspective; and profile 4 patients have similar impairments compared to profile 3 patients but with an excessive focus on others and deficits in self-reflection. These profiles were heterogeneous in terms of EDs represented in each group and presented significant differences on various variables such as attachment style, emotion dysregulation, empathy, interpersonal reactivity, and reflective function. This study represents, so far, the first work that confirms the presence of different mentalizing patterns in ED patients.Conclusions: ED patients can be classified in relation to impairments in different dimensions of mentalization above and beyond ED diagnosis.

The aims of this study were to identify (a) patterns of clinicians’ emotional responses to patients with eating disorders (ED); (b) patient, clinician, and treatment variables associated with therapist emotional responses; and (c) the influence of patient personality on therapist emotional responses. A random national sample of psychodynamic and cognitive-behavioral psychotherapists (N = 149) was asked to examine one patient (>18 years old) with an ED. Clinicians completed the SWAP-200, the Therapist Response Questionnaire, and the Clinical Questionnaire-Eating Disorder Form to provide general information about themselves, patients, and therapies. Results suggested a therapist pattern of emotional response in relation to different ED diagnosis and indicated meaningful influence of therapist experience and patient variables (such as sexual abuse, dissociative symptoms, and self-harm) on therapist emotional reactions. Finally, regression analysis suggested that therapist responses are more related to patient personality than ED symptoms. This study confirms the importance of patient personality in evoking specific therapists’ reactions.

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between patients' mentalizing problematics and their personality; specifically, it aimed to identify clusters of individuals characterized by specific patterns of mentalizing imbalances and to analyze the relationship between these and diagnosis of personality disorder (PD), nonmentalizing modes, emotion dysregulation, and interpersonal reactivity.Methods: Four hundred therapeutic dyads were recruited. A part of these (n = 183) only completed clinician‐report measures, Mentalization Imbalances Scale, and Modes of Mentalization Scale, while others (n = 217) also completed patients' self‐report measures, which were Reflective Functioning Questionnaire, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, and Interpersonal Reactivity Index.Results: A latent profile analysis enlightened the presence of four clusters with problematics in the dimensions of mentalization, indicated by cluster names: (1) Affective‐self‐automatic profile (ASA‐P) (with higher percentage of PDs); (2) External profile (E‐P) (with lower percentage of PDs); (3) Others‐automatic‐affective profile (OAA‐P); (4) Cognitive‐self‐automatic profile (CSA‐P). Multivariate analysis of variances confirmed that the four clusters differed in relation to the quality of mentalization, emotional dysregulation and interpersonal reactivity, with higher levels of nonmentalization modes, uncertainty about mental states and emotion dysregulation in ASA‐P, higher levels of good mentalization in E‐P, lower impulsivity in CSA‐P, and greater empathic concern in OAA‐P.