Research & Innovation

TA theory and practice is continuously evolving and more recent transactional analysis theorists have developed different and overlapping theories of transactional analysis: cognitive behavioural, systemic, process communication, relational, integrative, humanist, constructivist, narrative, body-work, developmental, co-created and constructivist. With this, research has been a key aspect of the development of TA theory and practice, below are some links to TA research resources, publications and instruments.


TA Research Website – Connecting The Transactional Analysis Community Worldwide

This website has been set up to enable researchers to share information about their activities, and to encourage the spread of research information so that all TA practitioners can use it to enhance their competence with clients.  Their hope is it will be used to find people to take part in research which is being conducted, and/or volunteer yourself or find others to take part in research being run by others, provide details of results of research conducted, and/or read and apply the results of research in TA practice.


International Journal of TA Research & Practice – IJTARP

IJTARP is an open-access journal that publishes TA theory, practice and research across the full range of TA applications. It promotes research comparing TA and other models and non-TA research that has significant implications for TA theory or practice. It also publishes papers on the practice and theoretical underpinnings of TA. IJTARP has an ongoing partnership with the TA Research website, where abstracts are published in a number of alternative languages . These translations are kindly provided by volunteers from the international TA community.


Research Instruments

These TA-Related Research Instruments are compiled by Fusun Akkoyun, Ph.D., CTA, PTSTA (P).

  • Gordon, E. (1980). Assessment of cure: A’ cure checklist’. TAJ. 10, 2, 107-114. (It is developed on the Bernean concept of cure and change. To be used from the points of view both the therapist and the client. Helpful for focusing on the interventions needed for the issue specified. More for clinical use.)
  • Pasternack, T. L. & Fain, J. L. (1984). An empirical test of the drama triangle. TAJ.14, 2, 145-148. (The findings provide empirical support for the concept of drama triangle. The study is based on reactions to an experiment. No drama triangle instrument is available.)
  • Falkowski. W. & Munn, K. (1989). Interrater agreement on Driver Questionnaire Items.TAJ. 19, 1, 42-44. (Driver Questionnaire is in the ‘Handbook of TA User’ by M. Reddy, 1979.)
  • Hazell, J. W. (1989). Drivers as mediators of stress response. TAJ. 19, 4, 212-223. (Drivers Checklist developed by the author is presented in the article. Short and easy score by hand, the scoring method is given at the end of the checklist. To be used in therapy and research.)
  • Allen, J.R. (1981). Assesment of ego states: Problems and prospects. TAJ. 11, 247-51. (The study distinguishes the subtle differences between relationship paradigms, affects, ego functioning, and states of consciousness in the classification of ego states. Problems of assessing ego states are presented.)
  • Daley, B. L. (1973). An instrument to determine basic ego states as defined by Transactional Analysis. Doctoral Dissertation: Union Graduate School-West, San Francisco. (Instrument consists of forthy groups with three sentences in each. Two of the sentences in each group were prerated as representive of two of five functional ego states. Reliability results good.)
  • Doelker, R. E. & Griffths, J. (1984). Development of an instrument to measure ego state functions and its application to practice. 14, 2, 149-152. (The Ego State Energy Inventory provides a profile of an individual’s personality for five ego states functions. To be primarily used as a self awareness instrument, also in a variety of settings such as professional education, clinical situations or training settings.)
  • Falkowski,W., Ben-Towim, D.& Bland, J. (1980). The assessment of the ego-states. British Journal of Psychiatry. 137: 572-3.
  • Gough & Heilburn. (1983). The Adjective Check List. Manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press. (The original instrument used in Williams & Williams work. Consists of 300 adjectives organized into multiple scales.)
  • Heyer, N.R. (1979). Development of a questionnaire to measure ego states with some applications to social and comparative psychiatry. TAJ, 9, 1, 9- 19 . (The Ego State Profile Questionnaire consists of 50 items that measure the energy distribution of the five ego states. Good reliability and validity results are presented.)
  • Kenney, W. J. & Lyons, B. F. (1979). Naturally occuring teacher ego state behavior. TAJ. 9, 4, 297-300. (The Ego States Observation Instrument –TASEOI – developed to assess teachers’ ego states. The instrument is not sensitive to assess subtle differences.)
  • L’Abate, L. (1978). An experimental paper-and-pencil test for assessing ego states. TAJ. 18, 31, 262-65. (The studies show sufficient validity to warrant further studies. Test information to be obtained from the author.)
  • Loffredo, D., Harrington, R. & Okech, A. P. (2002). Factor analysis of the ego state questionnaire. TAJ. (A 40-item instrument to measure five functional ego states. Later, a revisited study published with promising factor analysis results. See, Loffredo, D., Harrington, R. Munoz,M.K. & Knowles, L.R. (2004). The ego state questionnaire- Revisited. TAJ, 34, 1)
  • Mc Carley, D. G. (1975). Manual for ego state inventory (ESI). Chicago: Stoelting Com. Cat.#24540. (Consists of 52 cartoon drawings of two or more persons in social situations. Reliability and validity studies show promising results.)
  • Swede, S. (1978). Group ego state measure (GEM). TAJ, 8, 2, 163-165. (Used by analyzing the tape recording from a group setting. Results show that ego states and transactions are identifiable phenomena.)
  • Price, D.A. (1975). A paper-and-pencil instrument to measure ego states. TAJ. 5, 3, 242-246. (Likert- type scale developed to assess ego states; low reliability and validity results are reported.)
  • Thorne, S. & Faro, S. (1980). The ego state scale: A measure of psychopathology. TAJ, 10,1, 49-52. (ACL was used to develop an instrument for measuring 8 ego states based on Kahler’s eight functional ego states model. And, to explore the relationship between ego states and psychpathology. Results show that -NP is more highly correlated with pathology than – CP. +AC is not significantly related to a lack of pathology. +CP appears to play a greater role in a lack of pathology than does +NP.)
  • Turner, R. J. (1988). The Parent-Adult-Child projective drawing task : A therapeutic tool in TA. TAJ. 18, 1, 60-67. (More for clinical use.)
  • Williams, K.B. & Williams, J.E. (1980). The assesment of transactional analysis ego states via the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality Assesment. 2, 120-129. (A reliable instrument to measure functional ego states: CP, NP, A, FC, and AC. Computarized scoring is also available. See, for further study to test the construct validity of the ACL Ego States Scale: Williams, J., Watson, J.,Walters, P.III., Williams, J. (1983) Construct validity of ego states. TAJ. 13, 1, 43-49.)
  • Boholst, F.A. (2002). A life position scale. TAJ, 32, 1, 28-32. (Twenty item Likert-type scale with promising psychometric studies. Useful both in research and clinical settings. Local and cultural norms need to be established before using the scale in a different culture. Also, see Boholtst, et all. 2005. Life positions and attachment styles: A canonical analysis. TAJ. 35,1, 62-67.)
  • Fine, M. & Poggio, J. (1977). Behavioral attributes of the life positions. TAJ, 7, 350-356. (Personal orientation scale is developed to determine the existential life positions of teachers. Construct validity and reliability studies have promising results. Also, see 
  • Fine, M. & Poggio, J. (1977). Personal orientation scale. Field test instrument, University of Kansas.)
  • Kramer, F. D. (1978). Transactional analysis life position survey: An instrument for measuring life position. TAJ. 8,2, 166-168. (Forthy item Likert-type scale. Good reliability and validity results are reported. To be used in teaching, clinical, and research.)
  • Berne, E. (1972) What do you say after you say hello? Corgi Books. (script check list, p.426-434; condensed check list, p.435-6; therapy check list, p.437-8)
  • Hardy, M. W.& Best, R. H. (1985). Test-retest reliability of the freehand script maze.TAJ, 15, 2, 173-76. (Results shown not sufficiently reliable to be a good measure of script variables but have some value to establish rapport and to obtain information about present script variables.)
  • Kouw, W. (1977). Clinical use of projective techniques in the assessment of scripts.TAJ. 7, 156-9. (The use of the TAT to collect data on script material is illustrated. Clinical use.)
  • Levin- Landheer, P. (1981). A developmental script questionnaire. TAJ, 11, 1, 77-80. (This is also in her book of Cycles of Power. More for use in therapy.)
  • Mc Cormick, P. & Pulleyblank, E. (1979). A more comprehensive life script questionnaire.TAJ. 9, 234-236. (A comprehensive life script interview and matrix including constructive as well as destructive messages, and rewarding as well as self-defeating early decisions. In the matrix, the ego state halves are spread to allow room for inserting the messages.)
  • Steiner, C. (1967). A script checklist. 6, 22, 38-39. (Provides a guideline for obtaining imformation related to script apparatus.)
  • White, M. & White, J. (1986). Scripts and marathons. TAJ. 16, 1, 47-49. (A script questionnaire for constructing your own script matrix is presented. To be especially used in group therapy work.)
  • Wahking, H. (1979). The script decoder. TAJ. 9, 4, 237-240. (The grid with 18 general script descriptions is used to develop a brief descriptive name, three script styles described by Steiner and six script types by Berne.)
  • Woollams, S. J. (1979). Decision scale. TAJ. 9, 3, 209-212. (A decision scale with a zero to ten range is proposed as a tool for understanding and illustrating script information. Depicts the severity of decisions, the favored drivers, and the clients’ strengths on a single scale. Provides an easy way to follow changes during treatment.)
  • Joiness, V (2002). Joiness Personality Adaptation Questionnaire (JPAQ). (To assess personality adaptations; the kit consists of 25 questionnires, self administered, also available online.) For the details see Joiness, V. & Stewart, I. (2002). Personality Adaptations: A New Guide to Human Understanding in Psychotherapy and Counselling. Nottingham and Chapel Hill: Lifespace Publishing.  (For more information:
  • Knippel, G. P. (1980). The survivor’s checklist. TAJ, 10, 1, 61-67. (Checklist helps in the quick identification of survival issues and what is needed to resolve them.)
  • Mackey, M. S. (1977). TA in vocational rehabilitation: The rehabilitation checklist. In. Ed. M. James, Techniques in Transactional Analysis, Addison-Wesley. (p. 462-465). (Consists of 4 questions for determining A2 awareness of the disability, 6 questions of P2, and 7 questions for C2.)
  • Temple, S. (2004). Updates on the Functional Fluency Model in Education.TAJ, 34, 3. (Temple Index Functional Fluency (TIFF) is a self-report questionnaire, provides profile unique to that person, diagnostic measure in psychiatric contexts and also for treatment planning. For more information: ).
  • Zerin, E. & Zerin, M. (2004). The Q model and the Q model checklist. TAJ. 34, 1, … (A diagnostic, treatment, teaching, and evaluative instrument for individual and couple therapy.)
  • Brennan, T. & McClenaghan, J. C. (1978). The transactional behavior questionnaire. TAJ. 8, 1, 52-55. (Provides quantitative measures of fundamental TA theoretical concepts: existential options, ego states, stroking behaviors and intimacy.)