3.8 Article

Person-Centred and Experiential Psychotherapy Scale: Development and reliability of an adherence/competence measure for person-centred and experiential psychotherapies

Journal

COUNSELLING & PSYCHOTHERAPY RESEARCH
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages 220-226

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1080/14733145.2013.808682

Keywords

adherence/competence; person-centred therapy; experiential therapy; measure development

Funding

  1. BACP Seedcorn Research Funding

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: This study aimed to assess the reliability of the Person-Centred and Experiential Psychotherapy Scale (PCEPS), a new adherence/competence measure of person-centred and experiential psychotherapies. The PCEPS consists of 15 items with two subscales: Person-Centred Process and Experiential Process. Method: One-hundred twenty audio-recorded segments of therapy sessions were rated independently by two teams of three raters using the PCEPS. Half of the segments were 10 minutes long and the other half were 15 minutes long. Six therapists were experienced therapists and four were counsellors in training. Seven of the therapists identified their work as 'person-centred', and three identified their work as 'process-experiential'. Three raters were qualified and experienced person-centred therapists and three raters were personcentred counselling trainees in their first year of training. Results: Interrater reliabilities were good (alpha:.68-.86), especially when ratings were averaged across items (alpha: .87); interitem reliabilities were quite high (alpha:.98). Exploratory factor analyses revealed a 12-item facilitative relationship factor that cuts across Person-Centred and Experiential subscales (alpha: .98), and a nonfacilitative directiveness factor (3 items, alpha:.89). Conclusions/Implications: The PCEPS has potential for use in RCT research as well as in counselling training and supervision, but will require further testing and validation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available