@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{AyBrysonWeckKuehne2022,
  author    = {Ay-Bryson, Destina Sevde and Weck, Florian and K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Can simulated patient encounters appear authentic?},
  series = {Training and education in professional psychology},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {Training and education in professional psychology},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {American Psychological Association},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {1931-3918},
  doi       = {10.1037/tep0000349},
  pages     = {20 -- 27},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Public Significance Statement This study demonstrates that simulated patients (SPs) can authentically portray a depressive case. The results provide preliminary evidence of psychometrically sound properties of the rating scale that contributes to distinguishing between authentic and unauthentic SPs and may thus foster SPs' dissemination into evidence-based training. <br /> For training purposes, simulated patients (SPs), that is, healthy people portraying a disorder, are disseminating more into clinical psychology and psychotherapy. In the current study, we developed an observer-based rating instrument for the evaluation of SP authenticity-namely, it not being possible to distinguish them from real patients-so as to foster their use in evidence-based training. We applied a multistep inductive approach to develop the Authenticity of Patient Demonstrations (APD) scale. Ninety-seven independent psychotherapy trainees, 77.32\% female, mean age of 31.49 (SD = 5.17) years, evaluated the authenticity of 2 independent SPs, each of whom portrayed a depressive patient. The APD demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .83) and a strong correlation (r = .82) with an established tool for assessing SP performance in medical contexts. The APD scale distinguished significantly between an authentic and unauthentic SP (d = 2.35). Preliminary evidence for the psychometric properties of the APD indicates that the APD could be a viable tool for recruiting, training, and evaluating the authenticity of SPs. Strengths, limitations, and future directions are also discussed in detail.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{BruettMeisterBerngesetal.2017,
  author    = {Br{\"u}tt, Anna Levke and Meister, Ramona and Bernges, Tabea and Moritz, Steffen and H{\"a}rter, Martin and Kriston, Levente and K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Patient involvement in a systematic review},
  series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualit{\"a}t im Gesundheitswesen},
  volume    = {127-128},
  journal   = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualit{\"a}t im Gesundheitswesen},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Jena},
  issn      = {1865-9217},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.zefq.2017.07.005},
  pages     = {56 -- 61},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Patient involvement (PI) in research is increasingly required as a means to improve relevance and meaningfulness of research results. PI has been widely promoted by the National Institute for Health Research in England in the last years. In Germany, widespread involvement of patients in research is still missing. The methods used to realize PI have been developed mainly in English research contexts, and detailed information on how to involve patients in systematic reviews is rare. Therefore, the aim of the study was that patients contribute and prioritize clinically relevant outcomes to a systematic review on meta-cognitive interventions, and to evaluate a patient workshop as well as patients' perceptions of research involvement. Seven patients with experience in psychiatric care participated in our workshop. They focused on outcomes pre-defined in the review protocol (e.g., meta-cognitive or cognitive changes, symptomatology, quality of life), neglected other outcomes (like satisfaction with treatment, acceptability), and added relevant new ones (e.g., scope of action/autonomy, applicability). Altogether, they valued the explicit workshop participation positively. However, some suggested to involve patients at an earlier stage and to adapt the amount of information given. Further systematic reviews would benefit from the involvement of patients in the definition of other components of the review question (like patients or interventions), in the interpretation of key findings or in drafting a lay summary.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HahnWeckWitthoeftetal.2021,
  author    = {Hahn, Daniela and Weck, Florian and Witth{\"o}ft, Michael and K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Assessment of counseling self-efficacy},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.780088},
  pages     = {10},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: Many authors regard counseling self-efficacy (CSE) as important in therapist development and training. The purpose of this study was to examine the factor structure, reliability, and validity of the German version of the Counselor Activity Self-Efficacy Scales-Revised (CASES-R). Method: The sample consisted of 670 German psychotherapy trainees, who completed an online survey. We examined the factor structure by applying exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to the instrument as a whole. Results: A bifactor-exploratory structural equation modeling model with one general and five specific factors provided the best fit to the data. Omega hierarchical coefficients indicated optimal reliability for the general factor, acceptable reliability for the Action Skills-Revised (AS-R) factor, and insufficient estimates for the remaining factors. The CASES-R scales yielded significant correlations with related measures, but also with therapeutic orientations. Conclusion: We found support for the reliability and validity of the German CASES-R. However, the subdomains (except AS-R) should be interpreted with caution, and we do not recommend the CASES-R for comparisons between psychotherapeutic orientations.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HahnWeckWitthoeftetal.2022,
  author    = {Hahn, Daniela and Weck, Florian and Witth{\"o}ft, Michael and Maiwald, Lisa Marie and Foral, Annika and K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Wie erleben Psychotherapeut_innen in Ausbildung ihre Selbsterfahrung?},
  series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie},
  volume    = {50},
  journal   = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Hogrefe},
  address   = {G{\"o}ttingen},
  issn      = {1616-3443},
  doi       = {10.1026/1616-3443/a000626},
  pages     = {78 -- 89},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background: Self-experiential work is a central component of psychotherapy training. However, research on this matter has not received a lot of attention. Objective: This study explores the conditions and effects of helpful self-experiential work. Method: We interviewed 14 psychotherapists in training using a semistructured interview guide and applied qualitative content analysis according to Mayring (2015). Results: Different characteristics were associated with helpful self-experiential work: characteristics of the instructor (e. g., implementation skills), organization, willingness of the trainees to learn, topics and methods applied, and a sustainable working atmosphere. Among the positive effects reported was the promotion of the trainees' interpersonal competencies. Furthermore, we found some side effects and negative impact (e. g.. exhaustion). Conclusions: We were able to extract conditions that can guide the execution of helpful self-experiential work and the effects of self-experiential work from the perspective of the trainees.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{HeinzeWeckHahnetal.2022,
  author    = {Heinze, Peter Eric and Weck, Florian and Hahn, Daniela and K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Differences in psychotherapy preferences between psychotherapy trainees and laypeople},
  series = {Psychotherapy research : the official journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research},
  volume    = {33},
  journal   = {Psychotherapy research : the official journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1050-3307},
  doi       = {10.1080/10503307.2022.2098076},
  pages     = {374 -- 386},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Objective: Despite increasing research on psychotherapy preferences, the preferences of psychotherapy trainees are largely unknown. Moreover, differences in preferences between trainees and their patients could (a) hinder symptom improvement and therapy success for patients and (b) represent significant obstacles in the early career and development of future therapists. Method: We compared the preferences of n = 466 psychotherapy trainees to those of n = 969 laypersons using the Cooper-Norcross Inventory of Preferences. Moreover, we compared preferences between trainees in cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and psychodynamic trainees. Results: We found significant differences between both samples in 13 of 18 items, and three of four subscales. Psychotherapy trainees preferred less therapist directiveness (d = 0.58), more emotional intensity (d = 0.74), as well as more focused challenge (d = 0.35) than laypeople. CBT trainees preferred more therapist directiveness (d = 2.00), less emotional intensity (d = 0.51), more present orientation (d = 0.76) and more focused challenge (d = 0.33) than trainees in psychodynamic/psychoanalytic therapy. Conclusion: Overall, the results underline the importance of implementing preference assessment and discussion during psychotherapy training. Moreover, therapists of different orientations seem to cover a large range of preferences for patients, in order to choose the right fit.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{HeinzeWeckKuehne2022,
  author    = {Heinze, Peter Eric and Weck, Florian and K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Assessing Patient Preferences},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-54414},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-544140},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Despite the positive effects of including patients' preferences into therapy on psychotherapy outcomes, there are still few thoroughly validated assessment tools at hand. We translated the 18-item Cooper-Norcross Inventory of Preferences (C-NIP) into German and aimed at replicating its factor structure. Further, we investigated the reliability of the questionnaire and its convergence with trait measures. A heterogeneous sample of N = 969 participants took part in our online survey. Performing ESEM models, we found acceptable model fit for a four-factor structure similar to the original factor structure. Furthermore, we propose an alternative model following the adjustment of single items. The German C-NIP showed acceptable to good reliability, as well as small correlations with Big-Five personality traits, trait and attachment anxiety, locus of control, and temporal focus. However, we recommend further replication of the factor structure and further validation of the C-NIP.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HeinzeWeckKuehne2022,
  author    = {Heinze, Peter Eric and Weck, Florian and K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Assessing patient preferences},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Media},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.795776},
  pages     = {10},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Despite the positive effects of including patients' preferences into therapy on psychotherapy outcomes, there are still few thoroughly validated assessment tools at hand. We translated the 18-item Cooper-Norcross Inventory of Preferences (C-NIP) into German and aimed at replicating its factor structure. Further, we investigated the reliability of the questionnaire and its convergence with trait measures. A heterogeneous sample of N = 969 participants took part in our online survey. Performing ESEM models, we found acceptable model fit for a four-factor structure similar to the original factor structure. Furthermore, we propose an alternative model following the adjustment of single items. The German C-NIP showed acceptable to good reliability, as well as small correlations with Big-Five personality traits, trait and attachment anxiety, locus of control, and temporal focus. However, we recommend further replication of the factor structure and further validation of the C-NIP.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HeinzeWeckKuehne2022,
  author    = {Heinze, Peter Eric and Weck, Florian and K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Assessing Patient Preferences},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.795776},
  pages     = {10},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Despite the positive effects of including patients' preferences into therapy on psychotherapy outcomes, there are still few thoroughly validated assessment tools at hand. We translated the 18-item Cooper-Norcross Inventory of Preferences (C-NIP) into German and aimed at replicating its factor structure. Further, we investigated the reliability of the questionnaire and its convergence with trait measures. A heterogeneous sample of N = 969 participants took part in our online survey. Performing ESEM models, we found acceptable model fit for a four-factor structure similar to the original factor structure. Furthermore, we propose an alternative model following the adjustment of single items. The German C-NIP showed acceptable to good reliability, as well as small correlations with Big-Five personality traits, trait and attachment anxiety, locus of control, and temporal focus. However, we recommend further replication of the factor structure and further validation of the C-NIP.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Kuehne2021,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Beurteilung und Aufbau psychotherapeutischer Kompetenzen und die Ver{\"a}nderung von Patientenfertigkeiten},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2021},
  language  = {de}
}