These common skills are often referred to as common therapy factors and include such skills as interpersonal skills or communication ( 15). The measurement of competencies in role-plays is therefore either limited to very specific skills that are necessary for the particular simulated scenario (e.g., performing an exposure) or focuses on general skills that are observable across situations. Although role-plays offer a number of benefits, such as fair competence tests and targeted training for difficult situations ( 8), it is not easy to evaluate those skills that only come into play during the course of therapy or against the background of a specific treatment strategy (e.g., case conceptualization, repairing relationship ruptures etc.).
note that “the need for reliable, standardized methods to assess therapist competency prior to treating clients remains a significant gap in the literature” (p. By contrast, the assessment of competences in real therapy sessions and of treatment delivery refers to “therapy quality” ( 11– 14). Role-plays are particularly appropriate for assessing “therapist competency” in the narrower sense, that is, the demonstration of therapeutic skills in controlled conditions. Such measurements should be suitable for a number of different training contexts, for example, for the use in role-plays with simulated patients-a training approach that is becoming increasingly important in psychotherapy training ( 7– 11). In order to identify these skills and monitor their changes as recommended by several authors ( 3, 4), valid and reliable measurement methods are needed ( 5, 6). One of the main goals of psychotherapy training is to improve trainees’ skills ( 1, 2). Future studies should further investigate the one- or two-factor structure of the instrument. To ensure good inter-rater reliabilities, it is still advisable to employ raters with at least some clinical experience.
The ESEM yielded a two-factor solution ( Collaboration and Structuring and Exploration Skills).Ĭonclusion: 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. The one-factor model only marginally replicated the data, but the internal consistencies were excellent (α = 0.91–95). The intraclass correlations ranged between moderate and good, with student raters yielding the lowest scores. Results: Correlations with other competence rating scales were high ( rs > 0.86–0.89). 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. Thus, the objective is to validate a 14-item version of the Clinical Communication Skills Scale (CCSS-S). 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. 2Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.1Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.Ulrike Maaß 1*, Franziska Kühne 1*, Peter Eric Heinze 1, Destina Sevde Ay-Bryson 2 and Florian Weck 1
0 kommentar(er)
