F. Truijens, K. Van Nieuwenhove, M. D. De Smet, M. Desmet, R. Meganck
{"title":"How questionnaires shape experienced symptoms. A qualitative case comparison study of questionnaire administration in psychotherapy research","authors":"F. Truijens, K. Van Nieuwenhove, M. D. De Smet, M. Desmet, R. Meganck","doi":"10.1080/14780887.2021.1886383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Quantified symptom measurement by self-report questionnaires is part of the ‘gold standard’ of assessing psychotherapeutic efficacy. In this paper, we report a qualitative case comparison to explore how June and Amy, two patient-participants in a gold standard psychotherapy study, experienced the process of quantitative data collection. The study resembles cognitive interviewing studies conducted in the development of measures, yet advances them by investigating patients’ experiences of questionnaire administration in actual psychotherapy. Both cases reported known issues in interpretation of pre-structured item- and response formats, communicative administrator-respondent dynamics, and response shifts. Beyond known scoring problems, the act of questionnaire administration changed their interpretation of experienced symptoms, which facilitated clinical change beyond therapeutic effects. For Amy, this change was associated with improvement, but for June, questionnaire administration facilitated deterioration in experienced symptoms. These findings emphasize that it is both epistemically and ethically vital to consider measurement effects in clinical practice. This study demonstrates the importance of taking a qualitative stance in psychotherapy research, as qualitative research can elaborate the contextual and idiosyncratic nature of questionnaire scores, and highlights that both researchers and clinicians have to be attentive to the meaning of scores as words in participants’ clinical stories.","PeriodicalId":48420,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research in Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14780887.2021.1886383","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2021.1886383","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14
Abstract
ABSTRACT Quantified symptom measurement by self-report questionnaires is part of the ‘gold standard’ of assessing psychotherapeutic efficacy. In this paper, we report a qualitative case comparison to explore how June and Amy, two patient-participants in a gold standard psychotherapy study, experienced the process of quantitative data collection. The study resembles cognitive interviewing studies conducted in the development of measures, yet advances them by investigating patients’ experiences of questionnaire administration in actual psychotherapy. Both cases reported known issues in interpretation of pre-structured item- and response formats, communicative administrator-respondent dynamics, and response shifts. Beyond known scoring problems, the act of questionnaire administration changed their interpretation of experienced symptoms, which facilitated clinical change beyond therapeutic effects. For Amy, this change was associated with improvement, but for June, questionnaire administration facilitated deterioration in experienced symptoms. These findings emphasize that it is both epistemically and ethically vital to consider measurement effects in clinical practice. This study demonstrates the importance of taking a qualitative stance in psychotherapy research, as qualitative research can elaborate the contextual and idiosyncratic nature of questionnaire scores, and highlights that both researchers and clinicians have to be attentive to the meaning of scores as words in participants’ clinical stories.
期刊介绍:
Qualitative Research in Psychology is an international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality, original research. It aims to become the primary forum for qualitative researchers in all areas of psychology, including cognitive, social, developmental, educational, clinical, health, and forensic psychology. The journal also welcomes psychologically relevant qualitative research from other disciplines. It seeks innovative and pioneering work that advances the field of qualitative research in psychology.
The journal has published state-of-the-art debates on various research approaches, methods, and analytic techniques, such as discourse analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis, visual analyses, and online research. It has also explored the role of qualitative research in fields like psychosocial studies and feminist psychology. Additionally, the journal has provided informative articles on ethics, transcription, interviewee recruitment, and has introduced innovative research techniques like photovoice, autoethnography, template analysis, and psychogeography.
While the predominant audience consists of psychology professionals using qualitative research methods in academic, clinical, or occupational settings, the journal has an interdisciplinary focus. It aims to raise awareness of psychology as a social science that encompasses various qualitative approaches.
In summary, Qualitative Research in Psychology is a leading forum for qualitative researchers in psychology. It publishes cutting-edge research, explores different research approaches and techniques, and encourages interdisciplinary collaboration.