Assessing the psychotherapist's affective reactions toward their patient: validation of the Clinician Affective REsponse (CARE) scales.

IF 2.6 1区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Alberto Stefana, Eduard Vieta, Paolo Fusar-Poli, Eric A Youngstrom
{"title":"Assessing the psychotherapist's affective reactions toward their patient: validation of the <i>Clinician Affective REsponse (CARE) scales</i>.","authors":"Alberto Stefana, Eduard Vieta, Paolo Fusar-Poli, Eric A Youngstrom","doi":"10.1080/10503307.2025.2465432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> This study aims to evaluate the factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Clinician Affective REsponse (CARE) scales, a 15-item self-report measure designed for practical use in psychotherapy settings. <b>Methods:</b> Validation data were gathered from 151 mental health clinicians. These clinicians completed the CARE scales alongside measures capturing sociodemographic and professional details, patient demographics and clinical details, therapeutic intervention characteristics, therapeutic relationship elements, and session outcomes. <b>Results:</b> The CARE scales had a three-factor structure: positive engagement (<i>k </i>= 5, <i>ω </i>= .78), enmeshed (<i>k </i>= 5, <i>ω </i>= .72), and stuck (<i>k </i>= 5, <i>ω </i>= .71). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) yielded the following fit indices for the three-factor model: <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup><sub>(87) </sub>= 120.41, CFI = .94; TLI = .93, RMSEA = .05, and SRMR = .08. Multigroup CFA (which pooled two samples for a total of 607 subjects) showed that the CARE scales were invariant across remote and in-person session formats. The scales showed meaningful correlations with concurrent measures of working alliance, real relationship, countertransference, patient's experience of the therapeutic relationship, and session outcome. <b>Discussion:</b> The CARE scales are a valuable instrument in clinical, training, and research contexts, adept at capturing clinicians' session-level affective responses and perceptions of the therapeutic relationship. Quantifying these reactions facilitates statistical analysis and empirical research, while their monitoring can guide therapeutic interventions and inform clinical supervision.</p>","PeriodicalId":48159,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapy Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapy Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2025.2465432","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aims to evaluate the factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Clinician Affective REsponse (CARE) scales, a 15-item self-report measure designed for practical use in psychotherapy settings. Methods: Validation data were gathered from 151 mental health clinicians. These clinicians completed the CARE scales alongside measures capturing sociodemographic and professional details, patient demographics and clinical details, therapeutic intervention characteristics, therapeutic relationship elements, and session outcomes. Results: The CARE scales had a three-factor structure: positive engagement (k = 5, ω = .78), enmeshed (k = 5, ω = .72), and stuck (k = 5, ω = .71). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) yielded the following fit indices for the three-factor model: χ2(87) = 120.41, CFI = .94; TLI = .93, RMSEA = .05, and SRMR = .08. Multigroup CFA (which pooled two samples for a total of 607 subjects) showed that the CARE scales were invariant across remote and in-person session formats. The scales showed meaningful correlations with concurrent measures of working alliance, real relationship, countertransference, patient's experience of the therapeutic relationship, and session outcome. Discussion: The CARE scales are a valuable instrument in clinical, training, and research contexts, adept at capturing clinicians' session-level affective responses and perceptions of the therapeutic relationship. Quantifying these reactions facilitates statistical analysis and empirical research, while their monitoring can guide therapeutic interventions and inform clinical supervision.

评估心理治疗师对病人的情感反应:临床医生情感反应(CARE)量表的验证。
背景:本研究旨在评估临床医生情感反应量表(CARE)的因素结构、信度和效度,这是一种设计用于心理治疗设置的15项自我报告量表。方法:收集151名心理健康临床医生的验证数据。这些临床医生完成了CARE量表,同时测量了社会人口统计学和专业细节、患者人口统计学和临床细节、治疗干预特征、治疗关系要素和治疗结果。结果:CARE量表具有积极敬业(k = 5, ω = .78)、沉浸(k = 5, ω = .72)和粘滞(k = 5, ω = .71)三因子结构。验证性因子分析(CFA)对三因素模型的拟合指标为:χ2(87) = 120.41, CFI = 0.94;tli =。93、rmsea =。0.05, SRMR = .08。多组CFA(共收集了607名受试者的两个样本)表明,CARE量表在远程和现场会话格式中是不变的。量表与工作联盟、真实关系、反移情、患者对治疗关系的体验和治疗结果的并发测量显示有意义的相关性。讨论:CARE量表在临床、培训和研究环境中是一种有价值的工具,擅长捕捉临床医生对治疗关系的会话水平的情感反应和感知。量化这些反应有助于统计分析和实证研究,而它们的监测可以指导治疗干预和为临床监督提供信息。
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
Psychotherapy Research
Psychotherapy Research PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
10.30%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Psychotherapy Research seeks to enhance the development, scientific quality, and social relevance of psychotherapy research and to foster the use of research findings in practice, education, and policy formulation. The Journal publishes reports of original research on all aspects of psychotherapy, including its outcomes, its processes, education of practitioners, and delivery of services. It also publishes methodological, theoretical, and review articles of direct relevance to psychotherapy research. The Journal is addressed to an international, interdisciplinary audience and welcomes submissions dealing with diverse theoretical orientations, treatment modalities.
×
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