Back

Development and Preliminary Validation of the Group Cognitive Therapy Scale to Measure Therapist Competence

Nakashima, M.; Matsunaga, M.; Otani, M.; Kuga, H.; Fujisawa, D.

2022-06-08 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2022.06.07.22276085 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of this research was to create a scale to assess the competency of therapists who conduct group cognitive behavioral therapy (G-CBT), which can serve as a tool to aid the continued training of therapists. MethodsThree stepped studies were conducted. Study 1: Through literature review and experts consensus process, essential skills for G-CBT were articulated and were categorized according to the criteria of the Cognitive Therapy Scale, a well-established rating scale to evaluate clinicians skills in individual cognitive behavioral therapy. The list of those skills was organized into a rating scale. Study 2: Behavioral anchors were added to each skill and were classified by the levels of difficulty (beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels), based on the rating by G-CBT experts. Study 3: Interrater reliability and validity of the rating scale were examined in a sample of forty-one videotaped G-CBT sessions of actual clinical sessions and educational role-plays. ResultsA twelve-item Group Cognitive Therapy Scale was developed. It consists of eleven items that have been adopted from the original Cognitive Therapy Scale, with the addition of a new item called "Intervention Using Relationships with Other Participants." This scale showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha: 0.95), satisfactory inter-rater reliability (interclass correlation coefficients: 0.65 - 0.88), and high predictive validity. ConclusionA novel rating scale to evaluate therapists competency in G-CBT was developed and successfully validated.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.