Helpful Aspects of Therapy Form
Helpful Aspects of Therapy Form (HAT) · Also known as: HAT, Helpful Aspects Questionnaire
The Helpful Aspects of Therapy (HAT) form is a semi-structured client feedback instrument designed to capture the client's perception of what was most beneficial or helpful in a therapy session or course of treatment. Developed by Llewellyn and refined by Elliott, the HAT combines open-ended narrative response with structured rating scales, enabling rich qualitative insight alongside quantitative comparison. It is used in qualitative outcome research and clinical feedback systems to understand mechanisms of change from the client's perspective.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
The HAT is used in: (1) qualitative outcome research to understand what clients perceive as helpful; (2) post-treatment feedback (final session or after a series of sessions); (3) clinical supervision to train therapists on client-centered care; (4) program evaluation to assess whether intended interventions (e.g., CBT skills) align with client perception; (5) user experience research in digital therapeutics or online counseling; (6) comparative studies examining whether different therapy modalities are perceived as helpful via different mechanisms. Suitable for adolescents (age ≥14, with adapted language) and adults. Less useful for very young children, those with severe language/cognition impairment, or acute crisis (focus recovery first; feedback later). Works across diagnoses and theoretical orientations.
Strengths & limitations
- Combines qualitative richness with quantitative structure; captures both narrative depth and frequency analysis.
- Client-centered; asks clients directly what helps rather than imposing therapist assumptions.
- Reveals mechanisms of change: identifies which therapy factors (relationship, skill, insight) clients find most valuable.
- Transdiagnostic and modality-agnostic; applies to any therapy type, from CBT to psychodynamic.
- Feasible post-session; brief enough for routine administration without burden.
- Data are actionable: results can guide therapist training (emphasize what clients value) and program design (invest in valued interventions).
- Generates rich material for case study and in-depth outcome research.
- Content analysis of open-ended responses is time-intensive; coding requires trained raters and inter-rater reliability must be established.
- Response bias: clients may identify as helpful what they think the therapist wants to hear (social desirability) or may lack insight into actual mechanisms.
- Retrospective bias: asking post-treatment 'What was helpful?' may reflect outcome state (am I better?) rather than actual therapeutic process (what did I experience at the moment?).
- Small sample size effects in thematic analysis; with N<30, rare helpful factors may be missed; with N>300, may be cumbersome.
- No standardized coding scheme; different research groups use different thematic categories, limiting comparison across studies.
- Selection bias: clients who complete feedback forms may differ from those who drop out; dropouts' perspective on (un)helpful therapy elements is lost.
- The measure is primarily research-oriented; clinicians often use it informally without publishing findings, limiting evidence accumulation.
Frequently asked
What's the difference between HAT and satisfaction questionnaires?
Satisfaction measures ask 'Are you satisfied?' (yes/no or rating). HAT asks 'What was helpful and why?' Satisfaction is global judgment; HAT reveals mechanism. Clients may be satisfied with a pleasant therapist (high satisfaction, low perceived change), or unsatisfied with a challenging-but-transformative therapist (low satisfaction, high perceived mechanism). HAT gives richer understanding and is more clinically actionable.
Should I ask 'What was helpful?' or 'What was unhelpful?' or both?
Both. The 'helpful-unhelpful' paradigm (Elliott, 1985) provides balance. However, for routine practice feedback, 'What was helpful?' is primary; asking negative questions too early may discourage clients or harm alliance. In post-treatment research or mid-treatment check-ins, ask both. Some clients find the inverse framing powerful: 'What got in the way of therapy?' reveals barriers (e.g., homework burden, shame, time constraints) that positive prompts miss.
Can I administer HAT every session or only post-treatment?
Both are valid. Every-session HAT (brief, 1–2 open-ended items) captures session-by-session change and is excellent for real-time feedback and supervision. Post-treatment HAT (more detailed, longer) allows reflection on the full course and memory integration. Every-session is better for clinical feedback loops; post-treatment is better for research. Choose based on your goal.
How do I code open-ended responses?
Develop a codebook by reading 10–15 responses and identifying recurring themes (e.g., 'Therapist empathy,' 'Behavioral insight,' 'Feeling understood'). Define each code precisely. Then assign each response to one or more codes. Calculate inter-rater reliability (kappa) if using multiple coders. Software tools like NVivo or ATLAS.ti can assist, or simple spreadsheet coding with frequency counts works fine. Start with 5–10 broad codes; too many codes dilute findings.
What if clients say 'Everything was helpful' or 'Nothing was helpful'?
Global responses suggest either genuine broad satisfaction or lack of engagement. Follow up: 'If you had to pick one thing that stood out, what would it be?' Reframe to nudge specificity. If a client resists: 'Many people find the therapist's approach, the insights, or just being heard helpful. Which resonates most for you?' Document global responses as a category ('Global positive,' 'Global negative') during analysis.
Can I use HAT in couples or family therapy?
Yes. Ask each person 'What was helpful in this session for you?' Separate responses reveal individual perspective. Couples may find different things helpful: one person values the therapist's neutrality, the other values directiveness. Family members may identify different mechanisms (teen: 'Mom understood me'; parent: 'We learned communication tools'). This divergence is clinically valuable and more nuanced than a single family feedback score.
Is HAT valid for brief therapy or only long-term?
HAT is valid for any therapy duration. Brief therapy clients can still identify one or two helpful moments. In fact, brief therapy feedback is particularly valuable: if clients achieve goals in 3–5 sessions, what was the critical ingredient? HAT answers this question. Long-term therapy HAT is broader (entire course) while brief therapy HAT is more granular (per-session or final session). Both are useful.
Sources
- Llewellyn, S. P., Foo, S., & Stam, H. J. (1988). Assessing psychotherapy outcome: Clients' perspectives. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 22(2), 191–206. link ↗
- Elliott, R. (1985). Helpful and nonhelpful events in brief counseling interviews: An empirical taxonomy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(3), 307–322. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0167.32.3.307 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Helpful Aspects of Therapy Form (HAT). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/psychotherapy-research/helpful-aspects-of-therapy
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Common Factors QuestionnairePsychotherapy Research↔ compare
- Outcome Rating ScalePsychotherapy Research↔ compare
- Session Rating ScalePsychotherapy Research↔ compare
- Working Alliance InventoryPsychotherapy Research↔ compare