@article{RothRawaldKuehneLazaridesetal.2020,
  author    = {Roth-Rawald, Julia and K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Lazarides, Rebecca and Weck, Florian},
  title     = {Krankheits{\"a}ngste bei Psychologiestudierenden},
  series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie},
  volume    = {49},
  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/a000578},
  pages     = {103 -- 112},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Theoretischer Hintergrund: Als Medical Students' Disease wird die Angst von Medizinstudierenden bezeichnet, unter Krankheiten zu leiden, mit denen sie sich im Studium auseinandersetzen. Fragestellung: Es wurde untersucht, ob {\"a}hnliche Ph{\"a}nomene vor{\"u}bergehender Krankheits{\"a}ngste auch bei Psychologiestudierenden existieren. Methode: Mittels etablierter Illness-Attitude-Scales (IAS) und einer eigens entwickelten Erg{\"a}nzung wurden {\"A}ngste vor somatischen und psychischen Erkrankungen erhoben. Ergebnisse: Krankheits{\"a}ngste bei Psychologiestudierenden waren nicht st{\"a}rker ausgepr{\"a}gt als bei Studierenden anderer Fachrichtungen. {\"A}ngste vor k{\"o}rperlichen Erkrankungen waren h{\"a}ufiger als {\"A}ngste vor psychischen St{\"o}rungen, die keiner signifikanten zeitlichen Ver{\"a}nderung unterlagen. Schlussfolgerung: Die Besch{\"a}ftigung mit psychischen St{\"o}rungen geht nicht zwangsl{\"a}ufig mit einem Anstieg von {\"A}ngsten vor psychischen Erkrankungen unter Psychologiestudierenden einher. Erh{\"o}hte Belastungswerte bei allen Studierenden legen nahe, dass das Studium selbst eine Herausforderung darstellt, f{\"u}r deren Bew{\"a}ltigung Unterst{\"u}tzung angeboten werden kann. the same level of fear regarding health anxiety as students of other disciplines. Their anxiety about suffering from physical illnesses was also greater than their anxiety about suffering from mental disorders. Conclusion: Studying mental disorders does not necessarily result in an increase of related health anxiety. However, university studies seem to be a burdensome period of life in their own right, for which coping support can be provided.},
  language  = {de}
}
@misc{PhilippKristonLanioetal.2019,
  author    = {Philipp, Rebecca and Kriston, Levente and Lanio, Jana and K{\"u}hne, Franziska and H{\"a}rter, Martin and Moritz, Steffen and Meister, Ramona},
  title     = {Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders in adults-A systematic review and meta-analysis (METACOG)},
  series = {Clinical psychology \& psychotherapy},
  volume    = {26},
  journal   = {Clinical psychology \& psychotherapy},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1063-3995},
  doi       = {10.1002/cpp.2345},
  pages     = {227 -- 240},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {We evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders. We searched electronic databases and included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing metacognitive interventions with other treatments in adults with mental disorders. Primary effectiveness and acceptability outcomes were symptom severity and dropout, respectively. We performed random-effects meta-analyses. We identified Metacognitive Training (MCTrain), Metacognitive Therapy (MCTherap), and Metacognition Reflection and Insight Therapy (MERIT). We included 49 trials with 2,609 patients. In patients with schizophrenia, MCTrain was more effective than a psychological treatment (cognitive remediation, SMD = -0.39). It bordered significance when compared with standard or other psychological treatments. In a post hoc analysis, across all studies, the pooled effect was significant (SMD = -0.31). MCTrain was more effective than standard treatment in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (SMD = -0.40). MCTherap was more effective than a waitlist in patients with depression (SMD = -2.80), posttraumatic stress disorder (SMD = -2.36), and psychological treatments (cognitive-behavioural) in patients with anxiety (SMD = -0.46). In patients with depression, MCTherap was not superior to psychological treatment (cognitive-behavioural). For MERIT, the database was too small to allow solid conclusions. Acceptability of metacognitive interventions among patients was high on average. Methodological quality was mostly unclear or moderate. Metacognitive interventions are likely to be effective in alleviating symptom severity in mental disorders. Although their add-on value against existing psychological interventions awaits to be established, potential advantages are their low threshold and economy.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{PhilippKristonKuehneetal.2020,
  author    = {Philipp, Rebecca and Kriston, Levente and K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Harter, Martin and Meister, Ramona},
  title     = {Concepts of metacognition in the treatment of patients with mental disorders},
  series = {Journal of rational emotive and cognitive behavior therapy},
  volume    = {38},
  journal   = {Journal of rational emotive and cognitive behavior therapy},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York, NY},
  issn      = {0894-9085},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10942-019-00333-3},
  pages     = {173 -- 183},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {While metacognitive interventions are gaining attention in the treatment of various mental disorders, a review of the literature showed that the term is often defined poorly and used for a variety of psychotherapeutic approaches that do not necessarily pursue the same goal. We give a summary of three metacognitive interventions which were developed within a sound theoretical framework-metacognitive therapy, metacognitive training, and metacognitively-oriented integrative psychotherapies-and discuss their similarities and distinctive features. We then offer an integrative operational definition of metacognitive interventions as goal-oriented treatments that target metacognitive content, which is characterized by the awareness and understanding of one's own thoughts and feelings as well as the thoughts and feelings of others. They aim to alleviate disorder-specific and individual symptoms by gaining more flexibility in cognitive processing.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MeissnerWeckKuehne2020,
  author    = {Meissner, Claudia and Weck, Florian and K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Screening dysfunktionaler {\"U}berzeugungen bei Zwangsst{\"o}rungen},
  series = {Psychotherapeut},
  volume    = {65},
  journal   = {Psychotherapeut},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0935-6185},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00278-020-00410-4},
  pages     = {181 -- 189},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Background Dysfunctional beliefs and assumptions of obsessive thoughts are decisive for the etiology and maintenance of obsessive compulsive disorders (OCD). The reliable and valid assessment of these beliefs using screening procedures is relevant for the cognitive behavioral therapy. Objective Based on the domains suggested by the Obsessive Compulsive Cognitions Working Group (OCCWG), the aim of the current study was a scoping review of recent screening instruments on those domains relevant to OCD. The psychometric properties were systematically evaluated and their features were compared. Material and methods The literature search was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar und PubMed. English and German screening instruments for adults (>= 18 years) were included. Results A total of 56 studies on testing of psychometric characteristics of 16 screening instruments were included. The questionnaires included all domains of dysfunctional beliefs. In addition, four of them assessed multiple domains and nine were in the German language. The majority of screening procedures showed adequate to good psychometric properties. The methodological quality of the studies was heterogeneous, statistical and methodological procedures became more complex over the years. Conclusion Further research is necessary on disorder-related specificity and sensitivity to change for screening measures in different clinical samples.},
  language  = {de}
}
@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. <br /> 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{MaassKuehneMaasetal.2020,
  author    = {Maaß, Ulrike and K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Maas, Jana and Unverdross, Maria and Weck, Florian},
  title     = {Psychological interventions for health anxiety and somatic symptoms},
  series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Psychologie = Journal of psychology},
  volume    = {228},
  journal   = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Psychologie = Journal of psychology},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Hogrefe},
  address   = {G{\"o}ttingen},
  issn      = {2190-8370},
  doi       = {10.1027/2151-2604/a000400},
  pages     = {68 -- 80},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {This study examined the effectiveness of psychological interventions for severe health anxiety (SHA) regarding somatic symptoms (SS) and health anxiety (HA). The databases Web of Science, EBSCO, and CENTRAL were searched on May 15, 2019, May 16, 2019, and August 5, 2019, respectively. Eighteen randomized controlled trials (N = 2,050) met the inclusion criteria (i.e., hypochondriasis, illness anxiety disorder or somatic symptom disorder with elevated HA being assessed with validated interviews: use of standardized outcome measures). Two reviewers independently evaluated the studies' risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for randomized trials (RoB-2) tool. Overall, psychological interventions were significantly more effective than waitlist, treatment-as-usual, or placebo post-treatment (g(SS) = 0.70, g(HA) = 1.11) and at follow-up (g(SS) = 0.33, g(HA)= 0.70). CBT outperformed other psychological interventions or pharmacotherapy for HA post- treatment (Hedge's g(HA) = 0.81). The number of sessions did not significantly predict the effect sizes. In sum, psychological interventions were effective for SHA, but the generalizability of the results for SS is limited, because only two high-quatity trials contributed to the comparison.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{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 = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {820},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-58264},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-582642},
  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{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{KuehnePaunovWeck2021,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Paunov, Tatjana and Weck, Florian},
  title     = {Recognizing obsessive-compulsive disorder},
  series = {BMC psychiatry},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {BMC psychiatry},
  publisher = {Springer Nature},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1471-244X},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12888-021-03458-x},
  pages     = {7},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background Despite the prevalence of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), its precise identification remains challenging. With the Zohar-Fineberg Obsessive-Compulsive Screen (ZF-OCS; 5 or 6 items), a brief instrument is widely available mainly in English. As there is a lack of empirical studies on the ZF-OCS, the aim of the present study was to translate the items into German and investigate the instrument in a nonclinical sample. Methods In two consecutive online surveys, n = 304 and n = 51 students participated. Besides the ZF-OCS, they answered established measures on OCD, depression, health anxiety, general anxiety and health-related well-being. Results Whereas internal consistency was low (α = .53-.72; ω = .55-.69), retest reliability (rt1,t2 = .89) at two weeks was high. As expected, we found high correlations with other OCD instruments (r > .61; convergent validity), and significantly weaker correlations with measures of depression (r = .39), health anxiety (r = .29), and health-related well-being (r = -.28, divergent validity). Nonetheless, the correlations with general anxiety were somewhere in between (r = .52). Conclusions Due to heterogeneous OCD subtypes, the ZF-OCS asks diverse questions which probably resulted in the present internal consistency. Nevertheless, the results on retest reliability and validity were promising. As for other OCD instruments, divergent validity regarding general anxiety seems problematic to establish. Even so, the ZF-OCS seems valuable for screening purposes, as it is short and easy to administer, and may facilitate initiating subsequent clinical assessment. Further studies should determine the instrument's diagnostic accuracy.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{KuehnePaunovWeck2021,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Paunov, Tatjana and Weck, Florian},
  title     = {Recognizing obsessive-compulsive disorder},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {771},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-55447},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-554473},
  pages     = {9},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background Despite the prevalence of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), its precise identification remains challenging. With the Zohar-Fineberg Obsessive-Compulsive Screen (ZF-OCS; 5 or 6 items), a brief instrument is widely available mainly in English. As there is a lack of empirical studies on the ZF-OCS, the aim of the present study was to translate the items into German and investigate the instrument in a nonclinical sample. Methods In two consecutive online surveys, n = 304 and n = 51 students participated. Besides the ZF-OCS, they answered established measures on OCD, depression, health anxiety, general anxiety and health-related well-being. Results Whereas internal consistency was low (α = .53-.72; ω = .55-.69), retest reliability (rt1,t2 = .89) at two weeks was high. As expected, we found high correlations with other OCD instruments (r > .61; convergent validity), and significantly weaker correlations with measures of depression (r = .39), health anxiety (r = .29), and health-related well-being (r = -.28, divergent validity). Nonetheless, the correlations with general anxiety were somewhere in between (r = .52). Conclusions Due to heterogeneous OCD subtypes, the ZF-OCS asks diverse questions which probably resulted in the present internal consistency. Nevertheless, the results on retest reliability and validity were promising. As for other OCD instruments, divergent validity regarding general anxiety seems problematic to establish. Even so, the ZF-OCS seems valuable for screening purposes, as it is short and easy to administer, and may facilitate initiating subsequent clinical assessment. Further studies should determine the instrument's diagnostic accuracy.},
  language  = {en}
}