Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:34:00.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Competence in Collaborative Case Conceptualization: Development and Preliminary Psychometric Properties of the Collaborative Case Conceptualization Rating Scale (CCC-RS)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2015

Willem Kuyken ,
Shadi Beshai ,
Robert Dudley ,
Anna Abel ,
Nora Görg ,
Philip Gower ,
Freda McManus  and
Christine A. Padesky
Willem Kuyken*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford, UK
Shadi Beshai
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Canada and University of Exeter, UK
Robert Dudley
Affiliation:
Newcastle University, UK
Anna Abel
Affiliation:
University of Exeter, UK
Nora Görg
Affiliation:
University of Exeter, UK
Philip Gower
Affiliation:
University of Exeter, UK
Freda McManus
Affiliation:
University of Oxford, UK
Christine A. Padesky
Affiliation:
Center for Cognitive Therapy, Huntington Beach, California, USA
*
Reprint requests to Willem Kuyken, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: Case conceptualization is assumed to be an important element in cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) because it describes and explains clients’ presentations in ways that inform intervention. However, we do not have a good measure of competence in CBT case conceptualization that can be used to guide training and elucidate mechanisms. Aims: The current study addresses this gap by describing the development and preliminary psychometric properties of the Collaborative Case Conceptualization – Rating Scale (CCC-RS; Padesky et al., 2011). The CCC-RS was developed in accordance with the model posited by Kuyken et al. (2009). Method: Data for this study (N = 40) were derived from a larger trial (Wiles et al., 2013) with adults suffering from resistant depression. Internal consistency and inter-rater reliability were calculated. Further, and as a partial test of the scale's validity, Pearson's correlation coefficients were obtained for scores on the CCC-RS and key scales from the Cognitive Therapy Scale – Revised (CTS-R; Blackburn et al., 2001). Results: The CCC-RS showed excellent internal consistency (α = .94), split-half (.82) and inter-rater reliabilities (ICC =.84). Total scores on the CCC-RS were significantly correlated with scores on the CTS-R (r = .54, p < .01). Moreover, the Collaboration subscale of the CCC-RS was significantly correlated (r = .44) with its counterpart of the CTS-R in a theoretically predictable manner. Conclusions: These preliminary results indicate that the CCC-RS is a reliable measure with adequate face, content and convergent validity. Further research is needed to replicate and extend the current findings to other facets of validity.

Keywords

Cognitive-behaviour therapycase formulationcase conceptualizationcompetencetrainingCollaborative Case ConceptualizationRating Scale
Type
Research Article
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , March 2016 , pp. 179 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beck, J. S. (1995). Cognitive Therapy: basics and beyond. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F. and Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive Therapy of Depression. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Bieling, P. J. and Kuyken, W. (2003). Is cognitive case formulation science or science fiction? Clinical Psychology-Science and Practice, 10, 52–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, I. M., James, I. A., Milne, D. L., Baker, C., Standart, S., Garland, A., et al. (2001). The revised cognitive therapy scale (CTS-R): psychometric properties. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 29, 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosan, L., Reynolds, S. and Moore, R. G. (2008). Self-evaluation of cognitive therapy performance: do therapists know how competent they are? Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 36, 581–587. doi: 10.1017/S1352465808004438 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadwick, P., Williams, C. and Mackenzie, J. (2003). Impact of case formulation in cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 671–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crits-Christoph, P. and Mintz, J. (1991). Implications of therapist effects for the design and analysis of comparative studies of psychotherapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 20–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronbach, L. J. and Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.Google Scholar
Eells, T. D. (2007). Handbook of Psychotherapy Case Formulation (2nd edn). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Fothergill, C.D. and Kuyken, W. (2002). The Quality of Cognitive Case Formulation Rating Scale. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Kazantzis, N. (2003). Therapist competence in cognitive and behaviour therapies: review of the contemporary empirical evidence. Behaviour Change, 20, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuyken, W., Fothergill, C. D., Musa, M. and Chadwick, P. (2005). The reliability and quality of cognitive case formulation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 1187–1201. doi: 10.1016/J.Brat.2004.08.007 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuyken, W., Padesky, C. A. and Dudley, R. (2009). Collaborative Case Conceptualization: working effectively with clients in cognitive-behavioral therapy. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
McManus, F., Westbrook, D., Vazquez-Montes, M., Fennell, M. and Kennerley, H. (2010). An evaluation of the effectiveness of Diploma-level training in cognitive behaviour therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 1123–1132. doi: 10.1016/J.Brat.2010.08.002 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, R. G. and Garland, A. (2003). Cognitive Therapy for Chronic and Persistent Depression. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padesky, C. A., Kuyken, W. and Dudley, R. (2011). The Collaborative Case Conceptualization Rating Scale (CCC-RS). http://padesky.com/clinical-corner/clinical-tools Retrieved from http://padesky.com/clinical-corner/clinical-tools Google Scholar
Padesky, C. A. and Mooney, K.A. (2012). Strengths-based cognitive-behavioural therapy: a four-step model to build resilience. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 19, 283–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Persons, J. B., Roberts, N. A., Zalecki, C. A. and Brechwald, W. A. (2006). Naturalistic outcome of case formulation-driven cognitive-behavior therapy for anxious depressed outpatients. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1041–1051. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.08.005 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaw, B. F., Elkin, I., Yamaguchi, J., Olmstead, M., Vallis, T., Dobson, K. S., et al. (1999). Therapist competence ratings in relation to clinical outcome in cognitive therapy for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 837–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrout, P. E. (1998). Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 7, 301–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Streiner, D. L. and Norman, G. R. (1989). Health Measurement Scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vallis, T. M., Shaw, B. F. and Dobson, K. S. (1986). The Cognitive Therapy Scale - Psychometric Properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 381–385. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.54.3.381 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Consbruch, K., Clark, D. M. and Stangier, U. (2012). Assessing therapeutic competence in cognitive therapy for social phobia: psychometric properties of the cognitive therapy competence scale for social phobia (CTCS-SP). Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 40, 149–161. doi: 10.1017/S135246581100050610.1017/S1352465811000622 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiles, N., Thomas, L., Abel, A., Ridgway, N., Turner, N., Campbell, J., et al. (2013). Cognitive behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for primary care based patients with treatment resistant depression: results of the CoBalT randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 381 (9864), 375–384. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61552-9 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zivor, M., Salkovskis, P. M., Oldfield, V. B. and Kushnir, J. (2013). Formulation in cognitive behavior therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: aligning therapists, perceptions and practice. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 20, 143–151.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.