Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T01:29:04.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

What characterizes helpful personal practice in psychotherapy training? Results of an online survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2022

Daniela Hahn*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy and Experimental Psychopathology, Psychological Institute, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany
Florian Weck
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
Michael Witthöft
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy and Experimental Psychopathology, Psychological Institute, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany
Franziska Kühne
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
*
*Corresponding author. Email: d.hahn@uni-mainz.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Personal practice (PP) is often considered as a central component in psychotherapy training aiming to promote personal and therapeutic competences. However, its implementation varies considerably in practice.

Aims:

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the current practice of PP regarding the frequency/occurrence and perceived usefulness/impairment of topics, techniques and effects, as well as its helpful characteristics in psychotherapy training.

Method:

407 German psychotherapy trainees (214 cognitive behavioural therapy; 178 psychodynamic therapy) were surveyed online as to their current practice of PP.

Results:

For trainees, personal and therapeutic related topics were discussed. Reflection techniques and self-experiential practice were among the most frequently reported strategies, while the fostering of personal and interpersonal competences was among the effects with the strongest occurrence. However, negative PP effects were recorded as well. Differences in PP practice emerged between therapeutic orientations.

Conclusions:

As certain techniques which are central to PP (e.g. self-experience) were also rarely or not used, and negative effects reported, its potential might not be fully utilized.

Information

Type
Main
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies
Figure 0

Table 1. Characteristics of the participants for the total sample (N = 407) and separated for CBT (nCBT = 214) and PT (nPT = 178)

Figure 1

Figure 1. Specific topics in personal practice (PP) for the total sample (N = 407): mean scores and error bars (represent ±1.96 standard error). Scale range: frequency (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often), usefulness (1 = not at all, 2 = some, 3 = quite, 4 = very). *Only participants who received personal practice in a group format (n = 291).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Specific techniques in personal practice (PP) for the total sample (N = 407): mean scores and error bars (represent ±1.96 standard error). Scale range: frequency (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often), usefulness (1 = not at all, 2 = some, 3 = quite, 4 = very).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Positive and negative effects in personal practice for the total sample (N = 407): mean scores and error bars (represent ±1.96 standard error). Scale range: Occurrence/usefulness/impairment (1 = not at all, 2 = some, 3 = quite, 4 = very). *Only participants who received personal practice in a group format (n = 291).

Figure 4

Table 2. Categories derived from the open answers

Supplementary material: File

Hahn et al. supplementary material

Hahn et al. supplementary material 1

Download Hahn et al. supplementary material(File)
File 54 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hahn et al. supplementary material

Hahn et al. supplementary material 2

Download Hahn et al. supplementary material(File)
File 28.9 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.