@article{AartsAndersonAndersonetal.2015, author = {Aarts, Alexander A. and Anderson, Joanna E. and Anderson, Christopher J. and Attridge, Peter R. and Attwood, Angela and Axt, Jordan and Babel, Molly and Bahnik, Stepan and Baranski, Erica and Barnett-Cowan, Michael and Bartmess, Elizabeth and Beer, Jennifer and Bell, Raoul and Bentley, Heather and Beyan, Leah and Binion, Grace and Borsboom, Denny and Bosch, Annick and Bosco, Frank A. and Bowman, Sara D. and Brandt, Mark J. and Braswell, Erin and Brohmer, Hilmar and Brown, Benjamin T. and Brown, Kristina and Bruening, Jovita and Calhoun-Sauls, Ann and Callahan, Shannon P. and Chagnon, Elizabeth and Chandler, Jesse and Chartier, Christopher R. and Cheung, Felix and Christopherson, Cody D. and Cillessen, Linda and Clay, Russ and Cleary, Hayley and Cloud, Mark D. and Cohn, Michael and Cohoon, Johanna and Columbus, Simon and Cordes, Andreas and Costantini, Giulio and Alvarez, Leslie D. Cramblet and Cremata, Ed and Crusius, Jan and DeCoster, Jamie and DeGaetano, Michelle A. and Della Penna, Nicolas and den Bezemer, Bobby and Deserno, Marie K. and Devitt, Olivia and Dewitte, Laura and Dobolyi, David G. and Dodson, Geneva T. and Donnellan, M. Brent and Donohue, Ryan and Dore, Rebecca A. and Dorrough, Angela and Dreber, Anna and Dugas, Michelle and Dunn, Elizabeth W. and Easey, Kayleigh and Eboigbe, Sylvia and Eggleston, Casey and Embley, Jo and Epskamp, Sacha and Errington, Timothy M. and Estel, Vivien and Farach, Frank J. and Feather, Jenelle and Fedor, Anna and Fernandez-Castilla, Belen and Fiedler, Susann and Field, James G. and Fitneva, Stanka A. and Flagan, Taru and Forest, Amanda L. and Forsell, Eskil and Foster, Joshua D. and Frank, Michael C. and Frazier, Rebecca S. and Fuchs, Heather and Gable, Philip and Galak, Jeff and Galliani, Elisa Maria and Gampa, Anup and Garcia, Sara and Gazarian, Douglas and Gilbert, Elizabeth and Giner-Sorolla, Roger and Gl{\"o}ckner, Andreas and G{\"o}llner, Lars and Goh, Jin X. and Goldberg, Rebecca and Goodbourn, Patrick T. and Gordon-McKeon, Shauna and Gorges, Bryan and Gorges, Jessie and Goss, Justin and Graham, Jesse and Grange, James A. and Gray, Jeremy and Hartgerink, Chris and Hartshorne, Joshua and Hasselman, Fred and Hayes, Timothy and Heikensten, Emma and Henninger, Felix and Hodsoll, John and Holubar, Taylor and Hoogendoorn, Gea and Humphries, Denise J. and Hung, Cathy O. -Y. and Immelman, Nathali and Irsik, Vanessa C. and Jahn, Georg and Jaekel, Frank and Jekel, Marc and Johannesson, Magnus and Johnson, Larissa G. and Johnson, David J. and Johnson, Kate M. and Johnston, William J. and Jonas, Kai and Joy-Gaba, Jennifer A. and Kappes, Heather Barry and Kelso, Kim and Kidwell, Mallory C. and Kim, Seung Kyung and Kirkhart, Matthew and Kleinberg, Bennett and Knezevic, Goran and Kolorz, Franziska Maria and Kossakowski, Jolanda J. and Krause, Robert Wilhelm and Krijnen, Job and Kuhlmann, Tim and Kunkels, Yoram K. and Kyc, Megan M. and Lai, Calvin K. and Laique, Aamir and Lakens, Daniel and Lane, Kristin A. and Lassetter, Bethany and Lazarevic, Ljiljana B. and LeBel, Etienne P. and Lee, Key Jung and Lee, Minha and Lemm, Kristi and Levitan, Carmel A. and Lewis, Melissa and Lin, Lin and Lin, Stephanie and Lippold, Matthias and Loureiro, Darren and Luteijn, Ilse and Mackinnon, Sean and Mainard, Heather N. and Marigold, Denise C. and Martin, Daniel P. and Martinez, Tylar and Masicampo, E. J. and Matacotta, Josh and Mathur, Maya and May, Michael and Mechin, Nicole and Mehta, Pranjal and Meixner, Johannes and Melinger, Alissa and Miller, Jeremy K. and Miller, Mallorie and Moore, Katherine and M{\"o}schl, Marcus and Motyl, Matt and M{\"u}ller, Stephanie M. and Munafo, Marcus and Neijenhuijs, Koen I. and Nervi, Taylor and Nicolas, Gandalf and Nilsonne, Gustav and Nosek, Brian A. and Nuijten, Michele B. and Olsson, Catherine and Osborne, Colleen and Ostkamp, Lutz and Pavel, Misha and Penton-Voak, Ian S. and Perna, Olivia and Pernet, Cyril and Perugini, Marco and Pipitone, R. Nathan and Pitts, Michael and Plessow, Franziska and Prenoveau, Jason M. and Rahal, Rima-Maria and Ratliff, Kate A. and Reinhard, David and Renkewitz, Frank and Ricker, Ashley A. and Rigney, Anastasia and Rivers, Andrew M. and Roebke, Mark and Rutchick, Abraham M. and Ryan, Robert S. and Sahin, Onur and Saide, Anondah and Sandstrom, Gillian M. and Santos, David and Saxe, Rebecca and Schlegelmilch, Rene and Schmidt, Kathleen and Scholz, Sabine and Seibel, Larissa and Selterman, Dylan Faulkner and Shaki, Samuel and Simpson, William B. and Sinclair, H. Colleen and Skorinko, Jeanine L. M. and Slowik, Agnieszka and Snyder, Joel S. and Soderberg, Courtney and Sonnleitner, Carina and Spencer, Nick and Spies, Jeffrey R. and Steegen, Sara and Stieger, Stefan and Strohminger, Nina and Sullivan, Gavin B. and Talhelm, Thomas and Tapia, Megan and te Dorsthorst, Anniek and Thomae, Manuela and Thomas, Sarah L. and Tio, Pia and Traets, Frits and Tsang, Steve and Tuerlinckx, Francis and Turchan, Paul and Valasek, Milan and Van Aert, Robbie and van Assen, Marcel and van Bork, Riet and van de Ven, Mathijs and van den Bergh, Don and van der Hulst, Marije and van Dooren, Roel and van Doorn, Johnny and van Renswoude, Daan R. and van Rijn, Hedderik and Vanpaemel, Wolf and Echeverria, Alejandro Vasquez and Vazquez, Melissa and Velez, Natalia and Vermue, Marieke and Verschoor, Mark and Vianello, Michelangelo and Voracek, Martin and Vuu, Gina and Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan and Weerdmeester, Joanneke and Welsh, Ashlee and Westgate, Erin C. and Wissink, Joeri and Wood, Michael and Woods, Andy and Wright, Emily and Wu, Sining and Zeelenberg, Marcel and Zuni, Kellylynn}, title = {Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science}, series = {Science}, volume = {349}, journal = {Science}, number = {6251}, publisher = {American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science}, address = {Washington}, organization = {Open Sci Collaboration}, issn = {1095-9203}, doi = {10.1126/science.aac4716}, pages = {8}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47\% of original effect sizes were in the 95\% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39\% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68\% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.}, 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{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} } @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{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{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} } @article{JostKhaderDueseletal.2012, author = {Jost, Kerstin and Khader, Patrick H. and D{\"u}sel, Peter and Richter, Franziska R. and Rohde, Kristina B. and Bien, Siegfried and R{\"o}sler, Frank}, title = {Controlling conflict from interfering long-term memory representations}, series = {Journal of cognitive neuroscience}, volume = {24}, journal = {Journal of cognitive neuroscience}, number = {5}, publisher = {MIT Press}, address = {Cambridge}, issn = {0898-929X}, pages = {1173 -- 1190}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Remembering is more than an activation of a memory trace. As retrieval cues are often not uniquely related to one specific memory, cognitive control should come into play to guide selective memory retrieval by focusing on relevant while ignoring irrelevant information. Here, we investigated, by means of EEG and fMRI, how the memory system deals with retrieval interference arising when retrieval cues are associated with two material types (faces and spatial positions), but only one is task-relevant. The topography of slow EEG potentials and the fMRI BOLD signal in posterior storage areas indicated that in such situations not only the relevant but also the irrelevant material becomes activated. This results in retrieval interference that triggers control processes mediated by the medial and lateral PFC, which are presumably involved in biasing target representations by boosting the task-relevant material. Moreover, memory-based conflict was found to be dissociable from response conflict that arises when the relevant and irrelevant materials imply different responses. The two types of conflict show different activations in the medial frontal cortex, supporting the claim of domain-specific prefrontal control systems.}, language = {en} } @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} }