@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}
}
@misc{GieblerRuthTanneberg2018,
  author    = {Giebler, Heiko and Ruth, Saskia P. and Tanneberg, Dag},
  title     = {Why choice matters},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {104},
  issn      = {1867-5808},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42789},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-427891},
  pages     = {10},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Measures of democracy are in high demand. Scientific and public audiences use them to describe political realities and to substantiate causal claims about those realities. This introduction to the thematic issue reviews the history of democracy measurement since the 1950s. It identifies four development phases of the field, which are characterized by three recurrent topics of debate: (1) what is democracy, (2) what is a good measure of democracy, and (3) do our measurements of democracy register real-world developments? As the answers to those questions have been changing over time, the field of democracy measurement has adapted and reached higher levels of theoretical and methodological sophistication. In effect, the challenges facing contemporary social scientists are not only limited to the challenge of constructing a sound index of democracy. Today, they also need a profound understanding of the differences between various measures of democracy and their implications for empirical applications. The introduction outlines how the contributions to this thematic issue help scholars cope with the recurrent issues of conceptualization, measurement, and application, and concludes by identifying avenues for future research.},
  language  = {en}
}