4.1 Article

Reliability and validity of the OPD-conflict-questionnaire in an inpatient treatment sample

出版社

VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT GMBH & CO KG

关键词

Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnostics; Unconscious Conflicts; Inpatient Treatment; Interpersonal Problems; Structural Level

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the self-report OPD-conflict-questionnaire (OPD-CQ) for assessing unconscious conflicts. The study found significant correlations between the conflicts measured by OPD-CQ and symptom severity and interpersonal problems, indicating its potential as a screening tool for inpatient treatment. However, the internal consistencies of some scales were found to be unsatisfactory.
Objectives: Unconscious conflicts are a major part of psychodynamic diagnostics. Benecke et al. (2018) developed the OPD-conflict-questionnaire (OPD-CQ) to assess unconscious conflicts according to the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnostics (OPD) via self-report. We inspected its reliability and validity in a large inpatient sample with a focus on correlations with symptomatic burden, interpersonal problems, and structural level. Methods: N = 2083 patients completed questionnaires at the beginning of their inpatient stay in the Fachklinikum Tiefenbrunn between 2017 and 2020. We calculated internal consistencies of the OPD-CQ scales and (partial-)correlations of the OPD-CQ scales with different instruments. Results: Internal consistencies were only partly satisfying (for eight of 13 scales). We found significant (partial-)correlations of the conflicts with symptom severity and interpersonal problems which were in line with expectations. However, structural level correlated with more conflicts than we expected. Conclusions: Due to the low internal consistencies of some scales, we recommend a revision of the OPD-CQ. Still, the found correlations show the potential of the OPD-CQ as a screening instrument for patients in inpatient treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据