Do Therapists Improve in Their Ability to Assess Clients' Satisfaction? A Truth and Bias Model.

We used the truth and bias model to examine changes in tracking accuracy and under/overestimation (directional bias) on therapists' judgments about clients' satisfaction. We examined 3 factors of clinical experience that could moderate accuracy: (a) overall level of acquaintanceship with a client, operationalized as treatment length (i.e., less or more time seeing a client), (b) time point in therapy with a specific client, operationalized as session number (i.e., earlier or later in treatment with a client), and (c) order (1st client seen, 2nd client seen . . . last client seen across two years of training in a psychology clinic) in which clients were seen. We conducted a three-level hierarchical linear modeling using data on 6054 sessions, nested in 284 adult clients, nested in 41 doctoral student therapists providing open-ended psychodynamic individual psychotherapy. We found that therapists were able to accurately track client-rated session evaluations with less underestimation (i.e., lower tendency to estimate that clients were less satisfied than they actually were) as they gained experience (both treatment length and client order). Furthermore, therapists exhibited greater tracking accuracy gains over the span of shorter treatments and when working with clients earlier in their clinical training. In longer treatments and with clients seen later in training, tracking accuracy was stable and consistent. Implications for research and practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]