Refine
Language
- English (41) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (41)
Keywords
- psychotherapy (9)
- therapist competence (6)
- hypochondriasis (5)
- psychotherapy process (5)
- Psychotherapy research (4)
- Simulated patients (4)
- Standardized patients (4)
- Systematic review (4)
- assessment (4)
- psychotherapy training (4)
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.
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.
Objective:
Therapist competence is considered essential for the success of psychotherapy. Feedback is an intervention which has the potential to improve therapist competence. The present study investigated whether competence feedback leads to an improvement of therapist competence and patient outcome.
Method:
Sixty-seven master-level clinical trainees were randomly assigned to either a competence feedback group (CFG) or a control group (CG). Patients with a diagnosis of major depression (N = 114) were randomly assigned to CFG or CG. Treatment included 20 individual sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). In CFG, therapists received, parallel to the treatment, five competence feedbacks, based on videotaped therapy sessions. Independent raters assessed therapist competence with the Cognitive Therapy Scale (CTS) and provided the competence feedback. Patient outcome was evaluated with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and therapeutic alliance (Helping Alliance Questionnaire [HAQ]) from both therapist's (HAQ-T) and patient's (HAQ-P) perspective were evaluated after each of the 20 sessions.
Results:
(a) Therapist competence (CTS) increased significantly more for CFG than CG. (b) Depression (BDI-II) decreased significantly across sessions for both groups, but without evidence for a group-differential benefit for the CFG. (c) Therapeutic alliance (HAQ-T/P) increased significantly across sessions for both groups from both perspectives, but without group differences. (d) There is a positive effect of BDI-II on CTS at the beginning and a negative effect of CTS on BDI-II at the end of therapy.
Conclusion:
Competence feedback improves therapists' independently rated competence, but there is no evidence that competence feedback in CBT leads to better outcome.
What is the public health significance of this article? This study suggests the substantial value of systematic competence feedback for improving therapist competence in the psychotherapy of depression. No significant effect of competence feedback on the reduction of reported depressive symptoms was found.
Assessments of psychotherapeutic competencies play a crucial role in research and training. However, research on the reliability and validity of such assessments is sparse. This study aimed to provide an overview of the current evidence and to provide an average interrater reliability (IRR) of psychotherapeutic competence ratings. A systematic review was conducted, and 20 studies reported in 32 publications were collected. These 20 studies were included in a narrative synthesis, and 20 coefficients were entered into the meta-analysis. Most primary studies referred to cognitive-behavioral therapies and the treatment of depression, used the Cognitive Therapy Scale, based ratings on videos, and trained the raters. Our meta-analysis revealed a pooled ICC of 0.82, but at the same time severe heterogeneity. The evidence map highlighted a variety of variables related to competence assessments. Further aspects influencing the reliability of competence ratings and regarding the considerable heterogeneity are discussed in detail throughout the manuscript.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.