@article{KuehneMeisterMaassetal.2019, author = {K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Meister, Ramona and Maass, Ulrike and Paunov, Tatjana and Weck, Florian}, title = {How reliable are therapeutic competence ratings?}, series = {Cognitive therapy and research}, volume = {44}, journal = {Cognitive therapy and research}, number = {2}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {New York}, issn = {0147-5916}, doi = {10.1007/s10608-019-10056-5}, pages = {241 -- 257}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Assessments of psychotherapeutic competencies play a crucial role in research and training. However, research on the reliability and validity of such assessments is sparse. This study aimed to provide an overview of the current evidence and to provide an average interrater reliability (IRR) of psychotherapeutic competence ratings. A systematic review was conducted, and 20 studies reported in 32 publications were collected. These 20 studies were included in a narrative synthesis, and 20 coefficients were entered into the meta-analysis. Most primary studies referred to cognitive-behavioral therapies and the treatment of depression, used the Cognitive Therapy Scale, based ratings on videos, and trained the raters. Our meta-analysis revealed a pooled ICC of 0.82, but at the same time severe heterogeneity. The evidence map highlighted a variety of variables related to competence assessments. Further aspects influencing the reliability of competence ratings and regarding the considerable heterogeneity are discussed in detail throughout the manuscript.}, language = {en} } @article{AyBrysonWeckHeinzeetal.2020, author = {Ay-Bryson, Destina Sevde and Weck, Florian and Heinze, Peter Eric and Lang, Thomas and K{\"u}hne, Franziska}, title = {Can psychotherapy trainees distinguish standardized patients from real patients?}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie}, volume = {49}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie}, number = {3}, publisher = {Hogrefe}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {1616-3443}, doi = {10.1026/1616-3443/a000594}, pages = {182 -- 190}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Background: Under the new psychotherapy law in Germany, standardized patients (SPs) are to become a standard component inpsychotherapy training, even though little is known about their authenticity.Objective:The present pilot study explored whether, followingan exhaustive two-day SP training, psychotherapy trainees can distinguish SPs from real patients. Methods: Twenty-eight psychotherapytrainees (M= 28.54 years of age,SD= 3.19) participated as blind raters. They evaluated six video-recorded therapy segments of trained SPsand real patients using the Authenticity of Patient Demonstrations Scale. Results: The authenticity scores of real patients and SPs did notdiffer (p= .43). The descriptive results indicated that the highest score of authenticity was given to an SP. Further, the real patients did notdiffer significantly from the SPs concerning perceived impairment (p= .33) and the likelihood of being a real patient (p= .52). Conclusions: The current results suggest that psychotherapy trainees were unable to distinguish the SPs from real patients. We therefore stronglyrecommend incorporating training SPs before application. Limitations and future research directions are discussed.}, language = {en} } @article{MaassKuehneHeinzeetal.2022, author = {Maaß, Ulrike and K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Heinze, Peter Eric and Ay-Bryson, Destina Sevde and Weck, Florian}, title = {The concise measurement of clinical communication skills}, series = {Frontiers in Psychiatry}, volume = {13}, journal = {Frontiers in Psychiatry}, publisher = {Frontiers}, address = {Lausanne, Schweiz}, issn = {1664-0640}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyt.2022.977324}, pages = {10}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Objective: There is a lack of brief rating scales for the reliable assessment of psychotherapeutic skills, which do not require intensive rater training and/or a high level of expertise. Thus, the objective is to validate a 14-item version of the Clinical Communication Skills Scale (CCSS-S). Methods: Using a sample of N = 690 video-based ratings of role-plays with simulated patients, we calculated a confirmatory factor analysis and an exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), assessed convergent validities, determined inter-rater reliabilities and compared these with those who were either psychology students, advanced psychotherapy trainees, or experts. Results: Correlations with other competence rating scales were high (rs > 0.86-0.89). The intraclass correlations ranged between moderate and good [ICC(2,2) = 0.65-0.80], with student raters yielding the lowest scores. The one-factor model only marginally replicated the data, but the internal consistencies were excellent (α = 0.91-95). The ESEM yielded a two-factor solution (Collaboration and Structuring and Exploration Skills). Conclusion: The CCSS-S is a brief and valid rating scale that reliably assesses basic communication skills, which is particularly useful for psychotherapy training using standardized role-plays. To ensure good inter-rater reliabilities, it is still advisable to employ raters with at least some clinical experience. Future studies should further investigate the one- or two-factor structure of the instrument.}, language = {en} } @article{MaassKuehnePoltzetal.2022, author = {Maaß, Ulrike and K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Poltz, Nadine and Lorenz, Anna and Ay-Bryson, Destina Sevde and Weck, Florian}, title = {Live supervision in psychotherapy training}, series = {Training and education in professional psychology}, volume = {16}, journal = {Training and education in professional psychology}, number = {2}, publisher = {American Psychological Association}, address = {Washington}, issn = {1931-3918}, doi = {10.1037/tep0000390}, pages = {130 -- 142}, year = {2022}, abstract = {There is increasing interest in improving psychotherapy training using evidence-based supervision. One approach is live supervision (LS), in which the supervisor offers immediate feedback to the trainee (e.g., via microphone, text messages) during the session. This review summarizes the research on LS and its main results. The databases Web of Science Core Collection, PsycArticles, PsycBooks, PsycInfo, PSYNDEX, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and PubMed were searched from inception to January 23, 2020 (including a backward search) and updated November 15, 2020. The inclusion criteria (i.e., main focus on LS, immediate feedback from a present supervisor, psychological setting) were met by k = 138 publications, including k = 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs; N = 339). Two reviewers independently evaluated the RCTs' risk of bias using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool. Most publications had a family therapy background (59\%), were categorized as nonempirical (55\%), aimed primarily at describing or comparing specific LS methods (35\%), and displayed positive views on LS (87\%). Based on the RCTs, LS was superior to no-supervision in 78\% of all comparisons, but only in 13\% of the cases compared to a delayed supervision (DS) condition (i.e., regarding trainee skills, patient outcomes, or other variables). These results somewhat contradict the overall favorable views in the literature. However, the generalizability is limited due to a lack of high-quality studies and substantial heterogeneity in terms of LS methods, concepts, outcomes, and measurements. Ideas for more systematic research on LS regarding objectives and methods are proposed.
Public Significance Statement This review summarizes research on live supervision (LS). LS is a form of supervision in psychotherapy training in which the supervisor observes the trainee's therapy session and provides immediate feedback. The review concludes that LS is probably as effective as delayed supervision (DS), although more high-quality research is needed.}, language = {en} } @article{MaiwaldJungaLangetal.2019, author = {Maiwald, Lisa Marie and Junga, Yvonne Marie and Lang, Thomas and Montini, Romina and Witth{\"o}ft, Michael and Heider, Jens and Schr{\"o}der, Annette and Weck, Florian}, title = {The role of therapist and patient in-session behavior for treatment outcome in exposure-based cognitive behavioral therapy for panic disorder with agoraphobia}, series = {Journal of clinical psychology}, volume = {75}, journal = {Journal of clinical psychology}, number = {4}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0021-9762}, doi = {10.1002/jclp.22738}, pages = {614 -- 626}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Objective There is a very limited amount of research on the relationship between therapist and patient in-session behavior and treatment outcome in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for panic disorder with agoraphobia (PD/AG). Additionally, the findings tend to be inconclusive. This study investigates the association between therapist competence, adherence, patient interpersonal behavior, and therapeutic alliance and outcome in a low-control CBT setting by using comprehensive measures. Methods Twenty-six patients with PD/AG received 12 sessions of exposure-based CBT. With regard to the outcome, treatments were classified either as problematic or nonproblematic by means of distinct criteria. Two raters evaluated the in-session behavior. Results Patient interpersonal behavior was significantly associated with outcome at follow-up (r = 0.49). At posttreatment, the correlation did not reach significance ( r = 0.34). Competence, adherence, and alliance were not outcome associated. Conclusion The findings emphasize the need for therapists to pay particular attention to patients' interpersonal behavior during treatment.}, language = {en} }