@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}
}
@article{KuehneFauthDestinaSevdeetal.2021,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Fauth, Henriette and Destina Sevde, Ay-Bryson and Visser, Leonie N.C. and Weck, Florian},
  title     = {Communicating the diagnosis of cancer or depression: Results of a randomized controlled online study using video vignettes},
  series = {Cancer Medicine},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Cancer Medicine},
  edition   = {24},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken, New Jersey, USA},
  issn      = {2045-7634},
  doi       = {10.1002/cam4.4396},
  pages     = {9012 -- 9021},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background Communicating a diagnosis is highly important, yet complex, especially in the context of cancer and mental disorders. The aim was to explore the communication style of an oncologist vs. psychotherapist in an online study. Methods Patients (N = 136: 65 cancer, 71 depression) were randomly assigned to watch a standardized video vignette with one of two communication styles (empathic vs. unempathic). Outcome measures of affectivity, information recall, communication skills, empathy and trust were applied. Results Regardless of diagnosis, empathic communication was associated with the perception of a significantly more empathic (p < 0.001, η2partial = 0.08) and trustworthy practitioner (p = 0.014, η2partial = 0.04) with better communication skills (p = 0.013, η2partial = 0.05). Cancer patients reported a larger decrease in positive affect (p < 0.001, η2partial = 0.15) and a larger increase in negative affect (p < 0.001, η2partial = 0.14) from pre- to post-video than depressive patients. Highly relevant information was recalled better in both groups (p < 0.001, d = 0.61-1.06). Conclusions The results highlight the importance of empathy while communicating both a diagnosis of cancer and a mental disorder. Further research should focus on the communication of a mental disorder in association with cancer.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KuehneHermannPreisleretal.2021,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Hermann, Myriel and Preisler, Martina and Rohrmoser, Amy and Letsch, Anne and Goerling, Ute},
  title     = {Prognostic Awareness in Advanced Disease},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629050},
  pages     = {6},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Purpose: Although subjective knowledge about the prognosis of an advanced disease is extremely important for coping and treatment planning, the concept of prognostic awareness (PA) remains inconsistently defined. The aims of the scoping review were to synthesize a definition of PA from the most recent literature, describe preconditions, correlates and consequences, and suggest a conceptual model. Methods: By using scoping review methodology, we searched the Web of Science and PubMed databases, and included publications, reviews, meta-analyses or guidelines on all physical diagnoses, as well as publications offering a conceptual or an operational definition of PA. The data were analyzed by means of content analysis techniques. Results: Of the 24 included publications, 21 referred exclusively to cancer, one to patients with hip fractures and two to palliative care in general. The deduced definition of PA comprised the following facets: adequate estimation of chances for recovery, knowledge of limited time to live, adequate estimation of life expectancy, knowledge of therapy goals, and knowledge of the course of the disease. Further content analysis results were mapped graphically and in a detailed table. Conclusion: There appears to be a lack of theoretical embedding of PA that in turn influences the methods used for empirical investigation. Drawing on a clear conceptual definition, longitudinal or experimental studies would be desirable.},
  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{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{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{HahnWeckWitthoeftetal.2021,
  author    = {Hahn, Daniela and Weck, Florian and Witth{\"o}ft, Michael and K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Assessment of counseling self-efficacy},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.780088},
  pages     = {10},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: Many authors regard counseling self-efficacy (CSE) as important in therapist development and training. The purpose of this study was to examine the factor structure, reliability, and validity of the German version of the Counselor Activity Self-Efficacy Scales-Revised (CASES-R). Method: The sample consisted of 670 German psychotherapy trainees, who completed an online survey. We examined the factor structure by applying exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to the instrument as a whole. Results: A bifactor-exploratory structural equation modeling model with one general and five specific factors provided the best fit to the data. Omega hierarchical coefficients indicated optimal reliability for the general factor, acceptable reliability for the Action Skills-Revised (AS-R) factor, and insufficient estimates for the remaining factors. The CASES-R scales yielded significant correlations with related measures, but also with therapeutic orientations. Conclusion: We found support for the reliability and validity of the German CASES-R. However, the subdomains (except AS-R) should be interpreted with caution, and we do not recommend the CASES-R for comparisons between psychotherapeutic orientations.},
  language  = {en}
}