Refine
Year of publication
- 2022 (3) (remove)
Language
- English (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3) (remove)
Keywords
- psychotherapy process (3) (remove)
Institute
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.
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.