Search

Background: Effective monitoring of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) competence depends on psychometrically robust assessment methods. While the UK Cognitive Therapy Scale – Revised (CTS-R; Blackburn et al., 2001) has become a widely used competence measure in CBT training, practice and research, its underlying factor structure has never been investigated. Aims: This study aimed to present the first investigation into the factor structure of the CTS-R based on a large sample of postgraduate CBT trainee recordings. Method: Trainees (n = 382) provided 746 mid-treatment audio recordings for depression (n = 373) and anxiety (n = 373) cases scored on the CTS-R by expert markers. Tapes were split into two equal samples counterbalanced by diagnosis and with one tape per trainee. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted. The suggested factor structure and a widely used theoretical two-factor model were tested with confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement invariance was assessed by diagnostic group (depression versus anxiety). Results: Exploratory factor analysis suggested a single-factor solution (98.68% explained variance), which was supported by confirmatory factor analysis. All 12 CTS-R items were found to contribute to this single factor. The univariate model demonstrated full metric invariance and partial scalar invariance by diagnosis, with one item (item 10 – Conceptual Integration) demonstrating scalar non-invariance. Conclusions: Findings indicate that the CTS-R is a robust homogenous measure and do not support division into the widely used theoretical generic versus CBT-specific competency subscales. Investigation into the CTS-R factor structure in other populations is warranted.

Background:In this work we consider Cloninger's psychobiological model, which measures two dimensions of personality: character and temperament. Temperament refers to the biological basis of personality and its characteristics, while character refers to an individual's attitudes towards own self, towards humanity and as part of the universe.Methods:The Temperament and Character Inventory-Revised-140 (TCI-R-140) was administered to 3 divergent samples: a general population sample, a sample of male conscripts and a sample of individuals attending a substance abuse rehabilitation programme. Score differences among the three samples were assessed controlling for age and gender and reliability coefficients are reported. The latent structure was studied in all samples, using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis methods (EFA and CFA respectively).Results:The proposed structure was partially replicated via EFA. CFA however indicated less than satisfactory fit, as in previously reported results. To improve the fit, the path diagram was augmented to account for multiple factor complexity, as suggested by the EFA results in all samples. While retaining the original seven-factor structure, the augmented model provided adequate fit. The consistency of the inventory was satisfactory in all samples. Evidence for the construct validity was found in relation to aggression.Conclusions:This is the first study to conclude in adequate fit, after allowing for the indicators to load on more than one factor within each dimension. While cross-national differences apply, our results were similar (when comparable) with previously reported ones in the literature.

Introduction Meeting patients’ needs is of great importance for ensuring quality of life and reducing social disability in severe mental disorders, such as schizophrenia. However, the degree of agreement between patients and their therapists in the assessment of needs warrants further investigation, regarding that high patient-therapist agreement is associated with improved outcomes. Objectives Current symptomatology might differentially affect the self-report and clinician-rated appraisal of schizophrenia patients’ needs. Aims To examine the potential impact of current symptoms on patients’ and therapists’ assessment of patients’ needs. Methods Fifty-three schizophrenia patient–staff pairs were interviewed using the Greek research version of the Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN-R). Patients’ symptom severity was assessed with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Results The degree of agreement between staff and patients in the assessment of needs was high. Significant correlations were found between the total number of needs and all the dimensions of PANSS (positive, negative, general psychopathology) in the staff group but not in the patient group. In both groups, the total number of unmet needs was significantly correlated with the general psychopathology and the total PANSS scores. Conclusions The constancy of the therapeutic context might contribute to a high rate of agreement between patients and staff about needs of the latter. The severity of symptoms may influence clinicians’ assessment of schizophrenia patients’ needs. Nevertheless, according to both patients’ and therapists’ assessments symptom severity is associated with greater number of unmet needs.

Introduction Needs assessment has been highlighted as a crucial factor in the development, organisation and evaluation of mental health services. Moreover, meeting self-reported needs is of prime importance for ensuring quality of life and reducing social disability for people with severe mental disorders. Objectives Service evaluation based on patients’ need assessments has never taken place in Greece. Furthermore there are no standardized needs assessment instruments. Given the underfunding of psychiatric services due to the current economic crisis, systematic need assessment is expected to contribute to the efficient use of their limited resources. Aims To examine the concurrent validity, inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the Greek research version of the Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN-R). Method Fifty-three schizophrenia patient–staff pairs were interviewed twice to test the inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the CAN-R (Greek version). The WHOQOL-BREF and WHODAS 2.0 were administered to the patients to examine concurrent validity. Results The inter-rater and test-retest reliability of patient and staff interviews for the 22 individual items and the eight summary scores of the instrument's four sections were good to excellent. Significant correlations emerged between CAN scores and the WHOQOL-BREF and WHODAS 2.0 domains for patient and staff ratings, indicating good concurrent validity. Conclusion Our results suggest that the Greek version of the CAN-R is a reliable instrument for assessing mental health patients’ needs. This is the first CAN-R validity study with satisfactory results using WHOQOL-BREF and WHODAS 2.0 as criterion variables.