Validation of the German version of the Comparative Psychotherapy Process Scale.

IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Psychotherapy Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-30 DOI:10.1037/pst0000510
Klaus Michael Reininger, Hannah Marie Biel, David Algner-Herzmann, Timo Hennig, Sarah Liebherz, Christoph Kröger, Steffen Moritz, Peer Briken, Bernd Löwe
{"title":"Validation of the German version of the Comparative Psychotherapy Process Scale.","authors":"Klaus Michael Reininger, Hannah Marie Biel, David Algner-Herzmann, Timo Hennig, Sarah Liebherz, Christoph Kröger, Steffen Moritz, Peer Briken, Bernd Löwe","doi":"10.1037/pst0000510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Comparative Psychotherapy Process Scale (CPPS) is a 20-item scale which aims to capture technical features distinguishing cognitive behavioral (CBT) from psychodynamic (PD) psychotherapy (and vice versa) in two corresponding subscales (CBT and PD Subscale). Our objective was to validate a German self-report version of the CPPS regarding a previous psychotherapy session in a psychotherapist- and in a patient-version. Fifty-three psychotherapists and their 53 patients answered to the according German CPPS Scale as well as to specific subscales of the Multitheoretical List of Therapeutic Interventions self-report-instrument (MULTI-30 subscales) assessing CBT- and PD-specific intervention characteristics. We analyzed (a) the correlation of the CPPS with the MULTI-30 subscales, (b) the ability of the CPPS to distinguish whether therapy sessions were either CBT or PD using logistic regression, and (c) the correlation between psychotherapists' and patients' self-report regarding the preceding session (correlation). Both the psychotherapist- and the patient-version showed acceptable to good values of internal consistencies (α = .78-.84). The CBT and PD Subscales of the MULTI-30 correlated with the CPPS subscales in both versions (CBT: <i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = .85 [psychotherapist-version] and .80 [patient-version], PD: <i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = .79 [both versions]). Subscales correctly discriminated whether the previous session was a CBT or a PD session (correct predictions in 88.7% in the psychotherapist-version, 73.6% in the patient-version; χ² ≥ 14.03, <i>p</i> < .001). The German version of the CPPS is a promising instrument to facilitate research on CBT- and PD-specific psychotherapy processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20910,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapy","volume":" ","pages":"93-100"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000510","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Comparative Psychotherapy Process Scale (CPPS) is a 20-item scale which aims to capture technical features distinguishing cognitive behavioral (CBT) from psychodynamic (PD) psychotherapy (and vice versa) in two corresponding subscales (CBT and PD Subscale). Our objective was to validate a German self-report version of the CPPS regarding a previous psychotherapy session in a psychotherapist- and in a patient-version. Fifty-three psychotherapists and their 53 patients answered to the according German CPPS Scale as well as to specific subscales of the Multitheoretical List of Therapeutic Interventions self-report-instrument (MULTI-30 subscales) assessing CBT- and PD-specific intervention characteristics. We analyzed (a) the correlation of the CPPS with the MULTI-30 subscales, (b) the ability of the CPPS to distinguish whether therapy sessions were either CBT or PD using logistic regression, and (c) the correlation between psychotherapists' and patients' self-report regarding the preceding session (correlation). Both the psychotherapist- and the patient-version showed acceptable to good values of internal consistencies (α = .78-.84). The CBT and PD Subscales of the MULTI-30 correlated with the CPPS subscales in both versions (CBT: rs = .85 [psychotherapist-version] and .80 [patient-version], PD: rs = .79 [both versions]). Subscales correctly discriminated whether the previous session was a CBT or a PD session (correct predictions in 88.7% in the psychotherapist-version, 73.6% in the patient-version; χ² ≥ 14.03, p < .001). The German version of the CPPS is a promising instrument to facilitate research on CBT- and PD-specific psychotherapy processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
德文版比较心理治疗过程量表的验证。
比较心理治疗过程量表(CPPS)是一个包含20个项目的量表,旨在捕捉在两个相应的子量表(CBT和PD子量表)中区分认知行为(CBT)和心理动力(PD)心理治疗(反之亦然)的技术特征。我们的目标是验证德国的cps自我报告版本,该版本与心理治疗师之前的心理治疗有关,并在患者版本中进行验证。53名心理治疗师和他们的53名患者回答了根据德国CPPS量表以及评估CBT和pd特定干预特征的多理论治疗干预清单自我报告工具的特定子量表(MULTI-30子量表)。我们分析了(a) CPPS与MULTI-30子量表的相关性,(b) CPPS使用逻辑回归区分治疗是CBT还是PD的能力,以及(c)心理治疗师与患者关于前一次治疗的自我报告之间的相关性(相关性)。心理治疗师和患者的版本都显示出良好的内部一致性值(α = 0.78 - 0.84)。MULTI-30的CBT和PD分量表在两种版本中均与CPPS分量表相关(CBT: rs = .85[心理治疗师版本]和0.80[患者版本],PD: rs = .79[两种版本])。子量表正确区分前一次会话是CBT还是PD会话(心理治疗师版本的预测正确率为88.7%,患者版本的预测正确率为73.6%;χ²≥14.03,p < 0.001)。德文版本的CPPS是一个很有前途的工具,可以促进CBT和pd特定心理治疗过程的研究。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychotherapy
Psychotherapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
12.00%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training publishes a wide variety of articles relevant to the field of psychotherapy. The journal strives to foster interactions among individuals involved with training, practice theory, and research since all areas are essential to psychotherapy. This journal is an invaluable resource for practicing clinical and counseling psychologists, social workers, and mental health professionals.
期刊最新文献
Contribution of attachment insecurity to the role and outcome expectations of romantic partners entering couple therapy. We do this till we heal us: Black mental health professionals' experiences working with Black patients suffering from racial trauma. Dismantling amatonormative biases and expanding queer-affirmative psychotherapy: The role of trainers. Disrupting the status quo in psychology training: Centering structural competence in accreditation. Alliance rupture and repair in adolescent psychotherapy: What clinicians can learn from research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1