Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T00:49:49.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Group Schema Therapy Rating Scale – Revised

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2018

Emily Bastick ,
Suili Bot ,
Simone J. W. Verhagen ,
Gerhard Zarbock ,
Joan Farrell ,
Odette Brand-de Wilde ,
Arnoud Arntz  and
Christopher William Lee
Emily Bastick
Affiliation:
Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia
Suili Bot
Affiliation:
Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Simone J. W. Verhagen
Affiliation:
Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Gerhard Zarbock
Affiliation:
IVAH – Institut für Verhaltenstherapie-Ausbildung, Hamburg, Germany
Joan Farrell
Affiliation:
Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA Centre for Borderline Personality Disorder Treatment and Research, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Odette Brand-de Wilde
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands De Viersprong, Halsteren, The Netherlands
Arnoud Arntz
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Christopher William Lee*
Affiliation:
University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia
*
Reprint requests to Dr Christopher Lee, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Western Australia. E-mail: Chris.Lee@uwa.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: Recent research has supported the efficacy of schema therapy as a treatment for personality disorders. A group format has been developed (group schema therapy; GST), which has been suggested to improve both the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the treatment. Aims: Efficacy studies of GST need to assess treatment fidelity. The aims of the present study were to improve, describe and evaluate a fidelity measure for GST, the Group Schema Therapy Rating Scale – Revised (GSTRS-R). Method: Following a pilot study on an initial version of the scale (GSTRS), items were revised and guidelines were modified in order to improve the reliability of the scale. Students highly experienced with the scale rated recorded GST therapy sessions using the GSTRS-R in addition to a group cohesion measure, the Harvard Community Health Plan Group Cohesiveness Scale – II (GCS-II). The scores were used to assess internal consistency and inter-rater reliability. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the scores on the GSTRS-R with the GCS-II. Results: The GSTRS-R displayed substantial internal consistency and inter-rater reliability, and adequate discriminate validity, evidenced by a weak positive correlation with the GCS-II. Conclusions: Overall, the GSTRS-R is a reliable tool that may be useful for evaluating therapist fidelity to GST model, and assisting GST training and supervision. Initial validity was supported by a weak association with GCS-II, indicating that although associated with cohesiveness, the instrument also assesses factors specific to GST. Limitations are discussed.

Keywords

group schema therapytreatment adherencetreatment competencefidelityreliabilitypsychometric
Type
Research Article
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 46 , Issue 5 , September 2018 , pp. 601 - 618
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 2018 

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

Bamelis, L. L. M., Evers, S. M. M. A., Spinhoven, P. and Arntz, A. (2014). Results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness of schema therapy for personality disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171, 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.12040518Google Scholar
Bot, S. (2013). A pilot study: what is the inter-rater reliability of the Group Schema Therapy Rating Scale and is there a cultural difference between countries? Bachelor thesis, MARBLE: Empirical Research. Maastricht University.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555Google Scholar
Dickhaut, V. and Arntz, A. (2014). Combined group and individual schema therapy for borderline personality disorder: a pilot study. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 45, 242–251. https://doi-org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2013.11.004Google Scholar
Fassbinder, E., Schuetze, M., Kranich, A., Sipos, V., Hohagen, F., Shaw, I. et al. (2016). Feasibility of group schema therapy for outpatients with severe borderline personality disorder in Germany: a pilot study with three year follow-up. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 (1851). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01851Google Scholar
Farrell, J. M. and Shaw, I. A. (2012). Group Schema Therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: a Step-by-Step Treatment Manual with Patient Workbook. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. M., Shaw, I. A. and Webber, M. A. (2009). A schema-focused approach to group psychotherapy for outpatients with borderline personality disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 40, 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2009.01.002Google Scholar
Giesen-Bloo, J., van Dyck, R., Spinhoven, P., van Tilburg, W., Dirksen, C., van Asselt, T., Kremers, I., Nadort, M. and Arntz, A. (2006). Outpatient psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder: randomized trial of schema-focused therapy vs transference-focused psychotherapy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63, 649–658. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.63.6.649Google Scholar
Guydish, J., Campbell, B. K., Manuel, J. K., Delucchi, K., Le, T., Peavy, M. and McCarty, D. (2014). Does treatment fidelity predict client outcomes in 12-step facilitation for stimulant abuse? Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 134, 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.10.020Google Scholar
Hogue, A., Henderson, C. E., Dauber, S., Barajas, P. C., Fried, A. and Liddle, H. A. (2008). Treatment adherence, competence, and outcome in individual and family therapy for adolescent behavior problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.4.544Google Scholar
Kivlighan, D. M. and Lilly, R. L. (1997). Developmental changes in group climate as they relate to therapeutic gain. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 208–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.1.3.208Google Scholar
Landis, R. J. and Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310Google Scholar
Nenadić, I., Lamberth, S. and Reiss, N. (2017). Group schema therapy for personality disorders: a pilot study for implementation in acute psychiatric in-patient settings. Psychiatry Research, 253, 9–12. https://doi-org./10.1016/j.psychres.2017.01.093Google Scholar
Ogrodniczuk, J. S. and Piper, W. E. (2003). The effect of group climate on outcome in two forms of short-term group therapy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.7.1.64Google Scholar
Reiss, N., Lieb, K., Arntz, A., Shaw, I. and Farrell, J. (2014). Responding to the treatment challenge of patients with severe BPD: results of three pilot studies of inpatient schema therapy. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 42, 355–367. doi: 10.1017/S1352465813000027Google Scholar
Shrout, P. E. and Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420Google Scholar
Skewes, S. A., Samson, R. A., Simpson, S. G. and van Vreeswijk, M. (2015). Short-term group schema therapy for mixed personality disorders: a pilot study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 (1592). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01592Google Scholar
Soldz, S., Bernstein, E., Rothberg, P., Budman, S. H., Demby, A., Feldstein, M. et al. (1987). Harvard Community Health Plan Group Cohesiveness Scale – Version II (GCS-II): Rater Manual. Harvard Community Health Plan, Mental Health Research Program, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Soldz, S., Budman, S. H., Demby, A. and Feldstein, M. (1990). Patient activity and outcome in group psychotherapy: New findings. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 40, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207284.1990.11490583Google Scholar
Wetzelaer, P., Farrell, J., Evers, S., Jacob, G. A., Lee, C. W., Brand, O., van Breukelen, G., Fassbinder, E., Fretwell, H., Harper, R. P., Lavender, A., Lockwood, G., Malogiannis, I. A., Schweiger, U., Startup, H., Stevenson, T., Zarbock, G. and Arntz, A. (2014). Design of an international multicentre RCT on group schema therapy for borderline personality disorder. BMC Psychiatry, 14, 319. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-0319-3Google Scholar
Yalom, I. D. (1995). The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy (4th edition). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Zarbock, G., Rahn, V., Farrell, J. M. and Shaw, I. A. (2011). Group schema therapy: an innovative approach to treating patients with personality disorder [DVD]. Hamburg: IVAH.Google Scholar
Zarbock, G., Farrell, J. M., Schikowski, A., Heimann, A., Shaw, I., Reiss, N., Verhagen, S. and Bot, S. (2012). Group Schema Therapy Rating Scale (unpublished work). Hamburg: IVAH, Germany.Google Scholar
Zarbock, G., Farrell, J. M., Schikowski, A., Heimann, A., Shaw, I., Reiss, N., Verhagen, S., Bot, S., Lee, C. W., Arntz, A. and Bastick, E. (2014). Group Schema Therapy Rating Scale–Revised (GSTRS-R). Available at: https://doi.org/10.4225/23/585a265e14ab8.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.