Search

Objective: Several studies have used the Forms of Self-Criticism/Reassurance Scale (FSCRS; Gilbert, Clarke, Hempel, Miles, & Irons, 2004) when exploring the role of emotion regulation in psychopathology. However, psychometric evaluation of the FSCRS is limited. The present study sought to confirm the factor structure of the FSCRS based on theoretical and empirical grounds in a large sample of the general population. Method: The FSCRS was completed by a large sample of men and women ( N= 1,570) as part of an online survey. The data were randomly split in order to perform both independent exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). One-, two- and three-factor solutions were examined. Results: A three-factor model of reassured-self (RS) and the two types of self-criticism, inadequate-self (IS), and hated-self (HS), proved to be the best-fitting measurement model in this sample (χ2= 800.3, df= 148, p < .001; CFI [comparative fit index]= .966, TLI [Tucker Lewis index]= .961, RMSEA [root mean square error of the approximation]= .074). Although very similar to the original questionnaire, there were some differences in terms of the items that were retained. Validity was confirmed with the shortened FSCRS showing the same associations with mood and sex as the original version of the FSCRS. Conclusion: A three-factor model (RS, IS and HS) provided the best-fitting structure and confirmed the separation of different types of self-criticism. Future research should explore the degree to which these separable aspects of self-criticism are theoretically and clinically meaningful and to identify the role of self-reassurance in ameliorating their effects. Practitioner Points Positive clinical implications The current paper has established that the FSCRS consists of self-reassurance and two separable factors of self-criticism (inadequate-self and hated-self)., The current paper refined a measure to test the role of different kinds of self-criticism in the aetiology of psychopathology as well as evaluate outcomes following intervention., Cautions and limitations The current study did not recruit a clinical sample and responses from a clinical group may have revealed a different factor solution., A high percentage of the sample was classed as 'white' and female so the results of this study may not be representative of the general population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. Dissatisfaction with services has been associated with poorer child mental health outcomes, early treatment termination as well as disagreements over the nature of mental health difficulties, reasons for referral and therapy goals. The development of straightforward, reliable, and accurate methods of eliciting service users' views is essential within child and adolescent mental health care. This paper describes the development of the child and adolescent service experience (ChASE), a tool to measure children and young people's service experience Design. The study comprises a non-experimental, cross-sectional design. Methods. Participants were 132 mental health service users aged 8-18 years. Participants and their main carer completed the ChASE, Parent Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) () and Strengths and Difficulties (SDQ) Impact Supplement. Clinicians completed the SDQ Impact Supplement and provided clinical activity data. A sub-sample of participants completed the ChASE on a second occasion, 6 weeks after the completion of the first questionnaire. Results. Scrutiny of ChASE data indicated high levels of completion. Principal axis factoring identified three factors within the ChASE: Relationship, Privacy, and Session Activity. The ChASE has good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Significant correlations were found between the ChASE and carer satisfaction, service use, and youth clinical outcomes. Conclusions. The ChASE is a short, psychometrically robust tool for routine measurement of children, and young people's experience of mental health services, which users can complete easily. The results underline the importance of alliance factors to children and young people and their association with clinical improvement as well as the potential for the ChASE to be used a measure of children's therapeutic progress and alliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Research has suggested that the extent to which voices (i.e., auditory verbal hallucinations) are experienced as distressing might be influenced by negative beliefs about voices as well as maladaptive metacognitive styles involving the negative appraisal and maladaptive control of mental experiences. This cross-sectional study examined the contribution of both specific appraisals of voices and a metacognitive factor (i.e., experiential avoidance) to voice-related distress. Methods Self-report measurers of voice characteristics (voice frequency, duration as well as amount and intensity of voice-related distress), experiential avoidance, and appraisals of voices were collected in a sample of 101 voice-hearers. Results Experiential avoidance and negative beliefs about voices were associated with higher levels of voice-related distress, but not to measures of voice frequency and duration. Experiential avoidance and negative 'metaphysical' beliefs about voices were significant predictors of voice-related distress even after accounting for the effect of frequency and duration of voices, and explained similar proportions of unique variance in distress. Conclusions These findings suggest that the appraisals of voices and experiential avoidance are predictive of voice-related distress and that cognitive-behavioural interventions targeting both voice-specific appraisals and general maladaptive metacognitive processes could prove useful treatment approaches for clients with distressing voices. Practitioner points Experiential avoidance ( EA) and negative appraisals predict voice-related distress caused by voices, but not their frequency and duration., Interventions for voices should consider targeting EA and negative appraisals (e.g., cognitive-behavioural therapy, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) to ameliorate distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Diagnosis is ubiquitous in Psychiatry, and whilst it does bring benefits; adverse effects of 'labelling' may also be possible. This study aimed to evaluate experimentally whether clinicians' judgements about a patient with panic disorder were influenced by an inappropriately suggested diagnosis of comorbid borderline personality disorder ( BPD). Design An experimental design was used to evaluate clinician's judgements when the nature of the information they were given was varied to imply BPD comorbidity. Methods Two hundred and sixty-five clinicians watched a video-recorded assessment of a woman describing her experience of uncomplicated 'panic disorder' and then rated her present problems and likely prognosis. Prior to watching the video recording, participants were randomly allocated to one of three conditions with written information including the following: (1) her personal details and general background; (2) the addition of a behavioural description consistent with BPD; and (3) the further addition of a 'label' (past BPD diagnosis). Results The BPD label was associated with more negative ratings of the woman's problems and her prognosis than both information alone and a behavioural description of BPD 'symptoms'. Conclusions Regardless of potential actuarial value of such diagnoses, it is concluded that clinicians can be overly influenced by past diagnostic labels in the context of an apparent current comorbid problem, although such biases appear to be less likely if a description of the relevant behaviours is used instead. Thus, the label, rather than the behaviour it denotes, may be stigmatizing in mental health professionals. Practitioner points Diagnostic labels can have an inappropriately negative effect on clinicians' judgements not only of treatment variables such as engagement and response but also risk issues and interpersonal effectiveness., Diagnostic labels can have a greater effect on clinicians' judgements than a behavioural description or clinical presentation., Clinicians should therefore be cautious both in the use of diagnostic labels to describe patients and ensure that these are still valid, and also be mindful of the influence that such labels can have on their own clinical judgements and constantly seek to challenge these., Behavioural descriptions of difficulties are less likely to result in such negative judgements and predictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. This study investigated whether a reasoning bias ('jumping to conclusions'; JTC) found to be associated with higher levels of conviction in delusions is also associated with high-conviction beliefs in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Design. The experimental design was mixed-effects, with one between-subjects factor of group and one within-subjects factor of task. Methods. Participants were 16 people with high-conviction OCD (≥50%), 16 people with low-conviction OCD (<50%), 16 people with delusions (≥50% conviction), and 16 non-clinical controls. JTC was assessed using a neutral probabilistic reasoning task (beads task) and a version involving words of differing emotional salience (words task). Results. There was no statistically significant difference in draws to decision on the beads task between the high-conviction OCD group, the low-conviction OCD group, and the non-clinical controls. The delusions group made significantly fewer draws to decision compared to the non-clinical controls on the words task but not the beads task and significantly fewer draws on both tasks compared with the combined OCD group. Emotionally salient material (words task) did not affect draws to decision in any group. Conclusions. JTC is associated with delusions but not high-conviction beliefs in OCD. The cognitive processes associated with high-conviction beliefs in OCD and psychosis may not be trans-diagnostic. This is consistent with the view that high-conviction OCD should not be classified as a psychotic disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]