[Learning from Mistakes? - A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Acquisition of Knowledge about Clinical Communication Skills Using Positive vs. Mixed Therapy Models].

IF 0.7 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Ulrike Maaß, Lydia Fehm, Franziska Kühne, Heide Wenzel, Florian Weck
{"title":"[Learning from Mistakes? - A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Acquisition of Knowledge about Clinical Communication Skills Using Positive vs. Mixed Therapy Models].","authors":"Ulrike Maaß, Lydia Fehm, Franziska Kühne, Heide Wenzel, Florian Weck","doi":"10.1055/a-2359-7916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study compares two types of therapeutic model videos: an ideal model and a model that shows mistakes. The idea is that the conscious perception of mistakes is more likely to help build a comprehensive understanding of clinical communication skills than an ideal model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of n1=111 psychology students and n2=57 people from the general population were randomly assigned to one of two training conditions as part of an online study. While one group watched a short but competent conversation of a behavioral therapist in their training with a positive model video, the other group watched a mixed model video in their training that showed a therapist with mediocre competence. In both training videos, the positive or negative behavior was marked with written explanations. Before and after the training, the participants rated the competencies of a therapist in another interview situation using standardized scales. These competence ratings were compared with those of two clinical experts and thus provided an indicator of the participants' conceptual knowledge of competent interviewing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A series of ANCOVA models showed that the group that saw the mixed model video deviated significantly less from the experts after training than the group that saw the positive model video (ηp2=0.03-0.10). However, the group that watched the positive (vs. mixed) model video deviated more strongly from the expert judgments on two of three competence scales after the training than before (<i>d</i>Pre-Post=0.78-0.82).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Overall, the hypothesis that mixed models are advantageous was confirmed. The unexpected results in the group with the positive model video could be explained by the fact that they set an unrealistically high anchor to which the later behavior is compared.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mixed models may offer some advantage over positive models in imparting knowledge about professional communication, especially when the model videos contain behaviorally relevant explanations.</p>","PeriodicalId":47315,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2359-7916","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study compares two types of therapeutic model videos: an ideal model and a model that shows mistakes. The idea is that the conscious perception of mistakes is more likely to help build a comprehensive understanding of clinical communication skills than an ideal model.

Methods: A total of n1=111 psychology students and n2=57 people from the general population were randomly assigned to one of two training conditions as part of an online study. While one group watched a short but competent conversation of a behavioral therapist in their training with a positive model video, the other group watched a mixed model video in their training that showed a therapist with mediocre competence. In both training videos, the positive or negative behavior was marked with written explanations. Before and after the training, the participants rated the competencies of a therapist in another interview situation using standardized scales. These competence ratings were compared with those of two clinical experts and thus provided an indicator of the participants' conceptual knowledge of competent interviewing.

Results: A series of ANCOVA models showed that the group that saw the mixed model video deviated significantly less from the experts after training than the group that saw the positive model video (ηp2=0.03-0.10). However, the group that watched the positive (vs. mixed) model video deviated more strongly from the expert judgments on two of three competence scales after the training than before (dPre-Post=0.78-0.82).

Discussion: Overall, the hypothesis that mixed models are advantageous was confirmed. The unexpected results in the group with the positive model video could be explained by the fact that they set an unrealistically high anchor to which the later behavior is compared.

Conclusion: Mixed models may offer some advantage over positive models in imparting knowledge about professional communication, especially when the model videos contain behaviorally relevant explanations.

[从错误中学习?- 使用积极疗法与混合疗法模式获取临床沟通技巧知识的随机对照试验]。
研究目的本研究比较了两种治疗模型视频:理想模型和显示错误的模型。我们的想法是,与理想模型相比,有意识地感知错误更有助于建立对临床沟通技巧的全面理解:作为在线研究的一部分,共有 n1=111 名心理学学生和 n2=57 名普通人群被随机分配到两种训练条件中的一种。其中一组在培训中观看了一个行为治疗师简短但有能力的对话,并配有正面模式的视频;而另一组则在培训中观看了一个混合模式的视频,视频中的治疗师能力平平。在这两段培训视频中,积极或消极的行为都有文字说明。在培训前后,学员们使用标准化量表对治疗师在另一种面谈情境中的能力进行评分。这些能力评分与两位临床专家的评分进行了比较,从而提供了学员对胜任面谈的概念性知识的指标:一系列方差分析模型显示,观看混合模式视频的小组在培训后与专家的偏差明显小于观看积极模式视频的小组(ηp2=0.03-0.10)。然而,观看正模型(与混合模型)视频的小组在培训后三个能力量表中的两个量表上偏离专家判断的程度比培训前更严重(dPre-Post=0.78-0.82):讨论:总体而言,混合模型具有优势的假设得到了证实。讨论:总体而言,混合模式具有优势的假设得到了证实。使用积极模式视频的小组出现了意想不到的结果,原因可能是他们设定了一个不切实际的高锚,而后来的行为则与之进行比较:在传授专业交流知识方面,混合模式可能比正面模式更具优势,尤其是当示范视频包含与行为相关的解释时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
11.10%
发文量
89
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信