Graduate student perspectives on training and clinical experiences with antagonism treatment.

Courtland S Hyatt, Nathaniel L Phillips, Chelsea E Sleep, Donald R Lynam, Joshua D Miller
{"title":"Graduate student perspectives on training and clinical experiences with antagonism treatment.","authors":"Courtland S Hyatt, Nathaniel L Phillips, Chelsea E Sleep, Donald R Lynam, Joshua D Miller","doi":"10.1037/per0000688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this preregistered study was to gather evidence on training and clinical experiences offered by clinical psychology doctoral programs on the treatment of antagonism-a construct from the personality and psychopathology literature that captures individual differences in aggressiveness, callousness, grandiosity, domineering, and manipulativeness. We surveyed current graduate students (<i>N</i> = 376) in APA-accredited clinical psychology doctoral programs (<i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 28.4; 83.2% female; 65.2% White) about their experiences in training and treatment of antagonistic patients (ANT-patients) as well as experiences with patients with predominant negative affect (NA; e.g., anxious and depressed). Students reported significantly less training to treat antagonism compared to NA (|<i>ds</i>| = 0.43-2.88), as well as lower rates of direct clinical experience, generally poorer treatment experiences, and stronger countertransference reactions (|<i>ds</i>| = 0.53-1.40). These discrepancies were especially large for adult-focused students compared to child/adolescent-focused students. In fact, adult-focused students reported a mean competency rating of <i>M</i> = 1.71, between the scalar points <i>not competent at all</i> (1) and <i>a little bit competent</i> (2). Overall, these results indicate a lack of training and competence to treat antagonism among current graduate students, especially adult-focused students. We believe the crux of this issue is a field-wide lack of robust empirical work on antagonism treatments (for adults). Moving forward, we implore researchers and funding agencies to help address this substantial gap, which is both an ethical and practical imperative. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000688","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of this preregistered study was to gather evidence on training and clinical experiences offered by clinical psychology doctoral programs on the treatment of antagonism-a construct from the personality and psychopathology literature that captures individual differences in aggressiveness, callousness, grandiosity, domineering, and manipulativeness. We surveyed current graduate students (N = 376) in APA-accredited clinical psychology doctoral programs (Mage = 28.4; 83.2% female; 65.2% White) about their experiences in training and treatment of antagonistic patients (ANT-patients) as well as experiences with patients with predominant negative affect (NA; e.g., anxious and depressed). Students reported significantly less training to treat antagonism compared to NA (|ds| = 0.43-2.88), as well as lower rates of direct clinical experience, generally poorer treatment experiences, and stronger countertransference reactions (|ds| = 0.53-1.40). These discrepancies were especially large for adult-focused students compared to child/adolescent-focused students. In fact, adult-focused students reported a mean competency rating of M = 1.71, between the scalar points not competent at all (1) and a little bit competent (2). Overall, these results indicate a lack of training and competence to treat antagonism among current graduate students, especially adult-focused students. We believe the crux of this issue is a field-wide lack of robust empirical work on antagonism treatments (for adults). Moving forward, we implore researchers and funding agencies to help address this substantial gap, which is both an ethical and practical imperative. (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
研究生对拮抗治疗培训和临床经验的看法。
这项预先登记的研究旨在收集临床心理学博士项目在治疗对抗情绪方面所提供的培训和临床经验的证据--对抗情绪是人格和精神病理学文献中的一个概念,它捕捉了攻击性、冷酷无情、自大、专横跋扈和操纵性方面的个体差异。我们调查了美国心理学会(APA)认可的临床心理学博士课程的在读研究生(人数=376)(年龄=28.4;83.2%为女性;65.2%为白人),了解他们在训练和治疗对抗性患者(ANT-患者)方面的经验,以及在治疗以消极情绪(NA;如焦虑和抑郁)为主的患者方面的经验。与 NA 相比,学生们接受的治疗对抗情绪的培训明显较少(|ds| = 0.43-2.88),直接临床经验较少,治疗经验普遍较差,对抗情绪反应较强(|ds| = 0.53-1.40)。与关注儿童/青少年的学生相比,关注成人的学生的差异尤其大。事实上,关注成人的学生报告的平均能力评分为 M = 1.71,介于完全不称职(1)和有点称职(2)之间。总的来说,这些结果表明,目前的研究生,尤其是以成人为重点的学生,缺乏治疗对立情绪的培训和能力。我们认为,这个问题的关键在于整个领域都缺乏(针对成人的)治疗对抗情绪的有力实证研究。展望未来,我们恳请研究人员和资助机构帮助解决这一重大缺口,这既是道德问题,也是现实问题。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
First psychometric evaluation of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 in adolescents. Peer support for borderline personality disorder: A critical review of its feasibility, acceptability, and alignment with concepts of recovery. Investigating the transdiagnostic potential of rumination in relation to Cluster B personality disorder symptoms. An evaluation of measurement invariance of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition borderline personality disorder criteria across heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Identity disturbance in dimensional and categorical models of personality disorder: The incremental value of self-rated identity and narrative identity.
×
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