@misc{KuehneHeinzeWeck2020, author = {K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Heinze, Peter Eric and Weck, Florian}, title = {What do laypersons believe characterises a competent psychotherapist?}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {3}, issn = {1866-8364}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-54430}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-544304}, pages = {14}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Aim Although research and clinical definitions of psychotherapeutic competence have been proposed, less is known about the layperson perspective. The aim was to explore the views of individuals with different levels of psychotherapy experience regarding what-in their views-constitutes a competent therapist. Method In an online survey, 375 persons (64\% female, mean age 33.24 years) with no experience, with professional experience, or with personal pre-experience with psychotherapy participated. To provide low-threshold questions, we first presented two qualitative items (i.e. "In your opinion, what makes a good/competent psychotherapist?"; "How do you recognize that a psychotherapist is not competent?") and analysed them using inductive content analysis techniques (Mayring, 2014). Then, we gave participants a 16-item questionnaire including items from previous surveys and from the literature and analysed them descriptively. Results Work-relatedprinciples, professionalism, personalitycharacteristics, caringcommunication, empathy and understandingwere important categories of competence. Concerning the quantitative questions, most participants agreed with items indicating that a therapist should be open, listen well, show empathy and behave responsibly. Conclusion Investigating layperson perspectives suggested that effective and professional interpersonal behaviour of therapists plays a central role in the public's perception of psychotherapy.}, language = {en} } @article{KuehneHeinzeWeck2020, author = {K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Heinze, Peter Eric and Weck, Florian}, title = {What do laypersons believe characterises a competent psychotherapist?}, series = {Counselling and psychotherapy research}, volume = {21}, journal = {Counselling and psychotherapy research}, number = {3}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {1473-3145}, doi = {10.1002/capr.12343}, pages = {660 -- 671}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Aim Although research and clinical definitions of psychotherapeutic competence have been proposed, less is known about the layperson perspective. The aim was to explore the views of individuals with different levels of psychotherapy experience regarding what-in their views-constitutes a competent therapist. Method In an online survey, 375 persons (64\% female, mean age 33.24 years) with no experience, with professional experience, or with personal pre-experience with psychotherapy participated. To provide low-threshold questions, we first presented two qualitative items (i.e. "In your opinion, what makes a good/competent psychotherapist?"; "How do you recognize that a psychotherapist is not competent?") and analysed them using inductive content analysis techniques (Mayring, 2014). Then, we gave participants a 16-item questionnaire including items from previous surveys and from the literature and analysed them descriptively. Results Work-relatedprinciples, professionalism, personalitycharacteristics, caringcommunication, empathy and understandingwere important categories of competence. Concerning the quantitative questions, most participants agreed with items indicating that a therapist should be open, listen well, show empathy and behave responsibly. Conclusion Investigating layperson perspectives suggested that effective and professional interpersonal behaviour of therapists plays a central role in the public's perception of psychotherapy.}, 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{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} }