@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{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}
}