建立系统可靠的心理动力学过程笔记分析方法。

Q4 Psychology Psychodynamic Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1521/pdps.2024.52.3.358
Timothy Rice, Yonis Hassan, Arthi Vickneswaramoorthy, Natashaa Dalal, Michael Peral, Anton Livshin, Bernard Maskit, Wilma Bucci, Leon Hoffman
{"title":"建立系统可靠的心理动力学过程笔记分析方法。","authors":"Timothy Rice, Yonis Hassan, Arthi Vickneswaramoorthy, Natashaa Dalal, Michael Peral, Anton Livshin, Bernard Maskit, Wilma Bucci, Leon Hoffman","doi":"10.1521/pdps.2024.52.3.358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Process notes contain unique information concerning core elements of a psychodynamic treatment. These elements may be both conscious and unconscious for the author. One element for study is the tendency to which a therapist writes about providing either supportive or expressive interventions. This study sought to establish a method of systematically and reliably identifying the records of therapists' interventions as supportive or expressive. <b>Methods:</b> Three early-career clinicians were trained in the use of a process note intervention rating scale constructed specifically for this study. Quantitative statistical analyses assessed the scale's reliability and internal consistency. <b>Results:</b> Interrater reliability analysis determined at a <i>p</i> of 0.005 a Fleiss's kappa of 0.24 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.264, suggesting a low but statistically significant reliability between the raters. A Cronbach's alpha of 0.67 and a McDonald's omega of 0.53 suggested questionable internal consistency. <b>Discussion:</b> Early-career clinicians can reliably code the manifestations of interventions in psychodynamic process notes as supportive or expressive. Future studies may improve the reliability and internal consistency of the scale, add measures of interpretation content, and evaluate these data in relation to other core elements of process notes, such as the author's emotional engagement as manifested in language measures and clinical outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":38518,"journal":{"name":"Psychodynamic Psychiatry","volume":"52 3","pages":"358-369"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Establishing a Method of Systematic and Reliable Analysis of Psychodynamic Process Notes.\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Rice, Yonis Hassan, Arthi Vickneswaramoorthy, Natashaa Dalal, Michael Peral, Anton Livshin, Bernard Maskit, Wilma Bucci, Leon Hoffman\",\"doi\":\"10.1521/pdps.2024.52.3.358\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Process notes contain unique information concerning core elements of a psychodynamic treatment. These elements may be both conscious and unconscious for the author. One element for study is the tendency to which a therapist writes about providing either supportive or expressive interventions. This study sought to establish a method of systematically and reliably identifying the records of therapists' interventions as supportive or expressive. <b>Methods:</b> Three early-career clinicians were trained in the use of a process note intervention rating scale constructed specifically for this study. Quantitative statistical analyses assessed the scale's reliability and internal consistency. <b>Results:</b> Interrater reliability analysis determined at a <i>p</i> of 0.005 a Fleiss's kappa of 0.24 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.264, suggesting a low but statistically significant reliability between the raters. A Cronbach's alpha of 0.67 and a McDonald's omega of 0.53 suggested questionable internal consistency. <b>Discussion:</b> Early-career clinicians can reliably code the manifestations of interventions in psychodynamic process notes as supportive or expressive. Future studies may improve the reliability and internal consistency of the scale, add measures of interpretation content, and evaluate these data in relation to other core elements of process notes, such as the author's emotional engagement as manifested in language measures and clinical outcome.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychodynamic Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"52 3\",\"pages\":\"358-369\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychodynamic Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1521/pdps.2024.52.3.358\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychodynamic Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1521/pdps.2024.52.3.358","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介过程笔记包含有关心理动力学治疗核心要素的独特信息。这些要素可能是作者有意识的,也可能是无意识的。其中一个需要研究的要素是治疗师在记录中提供支持性或表达性干预的倾向。本研究试图建立一种方法,系统、可靠地识别治疗师的干预记录是支持性的还是表达性的。方法:对三位早期临床医生进行了培训,使他们能够使用专为本研究设计的过程记录干预评级量表。定量统计分析评估了量表的可靠性和内部一致性。结果评分者之间的可靠性分析表明,弗莱斯卡帕(Fleiss's kappa)为 0.24,类内相关系数为 0.264,评分者之间的可靠性较低,但在统计学上具有显著意义。Cronbach's alpha 为 0.67,McDonald's omega 为 0.53,表明内部一致性值得怀疑。讨论:早期临床医生可以可靠地将心理动力学过程记录中的干预表现编码为支持性或表达性。未来的研究可以改进量表的可靠性和内部一致性,增加解释内容的测量,并结合过程笔记的其他核心要素(如作者在语言测量和临床结果中表现出的情感投入)对这些数据进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Establishing a Method of Systematic and Reliable Analysis of Psychodynamic Process Notes.

Introduction: Process notes contain unique information concerning core elements of a psychodynamic treatment. These elements may be both conscious and unconscious for the author. One element for study is the tendency to which a therapist writes about providing either supportive or expressive interventions. This study sought to establish a method of systematically and reliably identifying the records of therapists' interventions as supportive or expressive. Methods: Three early-career clinicians were trained in the use of a process note intervention rating scale constructed specifically for this study. Quantitative statistical analyses assessed the scale's reliability and internal consistency. Results: Interrater reliability analysis determined at a p of 0.005 a Fleiss's kappa of 0.24 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.264, suggesting a low but statistically significant reliability between the raters. A Cronbach's alpha of 0.67 and a McDonald's omega of 0.53 suggested questionable internal consistency. Discussion: Early-career clinicians can reliably code the manifestations of interventions in psychodynamic process notes as supportive or expressive. Future studies may improve the reliability and internal consistency of the scale, add measures of interpretation content, and evaluate these data in relation to other core elements of process notes, such as the author's emotional engagement as manifested in language measures and clinical outcome.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychodynamic Psychiatry
Psychodynamic Psychiatry Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
期刊最新文献
A Primer on Human Birth Theory. Addressing At-the-Moment Defenses against Painful Affects: A Core Mechanism of Change in Psychodynamic Treatment. Could Knowledge of Borderline Personality Disorder Benefit College Campus Mental Health? Demystifying Jung's "Archetypes" with Embodied Cognition. Erratum.
×
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