ABSTRACT
The Psychological Mindedness Assessment Procedure, Extended Dutch Version (PMAP-plus), was developed to assess psychological mindedness in mental health care. Psychological Mindedness represents the ability to understand self and others through mental representations of internal psychodynamic states. In patients, deficits in psychological mindedness capacity can cause problems in self- and interpersonal functioning. This brief report describes interrater reliability of four PMAP-plus scenarios for evaluating psychological mindedness capacity among patients. Patients with personality disorders (N = 194) were asked to respond to four enacted videotaped PMAP-plus scenarios presenting a person talking about a personal experience. The videotaped scenarios varied in their emotional impact. All verbatim responses were scored by two clinically experienced raters on a hierarchical scale with gradually increasing complexity of psychodynamic understanding. Clinicians achieved acceptable interrater reliability on PMAP-plus in this patient population. Two scenarios with low emotional impact evoked significantly higher interrater agreement as compared to two scenarios with high emotional impact. Our results suggest that mental health professionals can reliably distinguish levels of psychological mindedness by assessing PMAP-plus in a patient population. Scenarios differ in potency to reveal psychological mindedness capacity. The variation in emotional impact in subsequent scenarios makes it a promising instrument measuring psychodynamic capacities for psychotherapeutic treatment.
Subject(s)
Emotions , Humans , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The Psychological Mindedness Assessment Procedure [PMAP; McCallum, M. & Piper, W. E. (1990)] operationalizes psychological mindedness as a participant's understanding of the problem presented by two videotaped enacted patients. To possibly enhance predictive power for psychotherapy outcome, we added two video scenarios with emotionally high-impact. This article describes psychometric properties of the Dutch translation of the PMAP and the extended version, the PMAP-plus. DESIGN: A therapy-analogue study with non-clinical participants (N = 100). METHODS: In individual sessions, participants watched the four video-scenarios and responded to the PMAP-question 'What seems to be troubling this woman?'. Emotional reactions were measured using the Positive And Negative Affect Schedule [PANAS; Watson, D., Clark, L. E. & Tellegen, A. (1988)]. RESULTS: The PMAP and the PMAP-plus had good interrater reliability. As expected, PMAP-levels were lower for the newly added high-emotional scenarios. Validity was further supported by a negative relation of PMAP-scores with the Negative Affect subscale. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch translation of the PMAP and the added scenarios of the PMAP-plus are reliable instruments. The predictive power for psychotherapy outcome needs to be investigated in a patient group. The variation in presented clinical problems could also make it a useful instrument to assess psychological mindedness in psychotherapists.
Subject(s)
Comprehension , Patient Simulation , Psychotherapy , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adult , Affect , Affective Symptoms/psychology , Affective Symptoms/therapy , Awareness , Female , Humans , Male , Netherlands , Predictive Value of Tests , Professional-Patient Relations , Psychometrics , Reproducibility of Results , Self Concept , Social Perception , Translating , Treatment Outcome , Videotape Recording , Visual PerceptionABSTRACT
This study aimed to evaluate the differential effect of outcome monitoring feedback to therapists and to patients on outcomes in cluster B, cluster C, and personality disorder not otherwise specified (PD-NOS) patients. Day treatment patients (n = 112) and inpatients (n = 94) were randomly assigned to a feedback to therapist (FbT), feedback to therapist and patient (FbTP), or no feedback (NFb) condition. Feedback was based on weekly administrations of the Outcome Questionnaire-45 (OQ-45). In cluster B and PD-NOS patients FbTP resulted in increased OQ-45 scores during the first 6 months of therapy for not on track (NOT) patients. In cluster C patients, no adverse effects of feedback were found. These results suggest that for certain personality disorder patient groups, providing feedback during treatment may not always be beneficial, although more research is needed to further assess these effects.