Basic counseling skills in psychology and teaching: validation of a short version of the counselor activity self-efficacy scales.

BACKGROUND: Counseling self-efficacy is a relevant measure to examine trainees' beliefs about their counseling skills. This study aimed to validate three scales of the revised German version of the Counselor Activity Self-Efficacy Scales (CASES-R) measuring basic counseling skills. To ascertain the scales' sensitivity to change, counseling self-efficacy was assessed before and after specific training. METHOD: The sample comprised 163 university students enrolled either in psychology or education. Students were examined before and after participating in training focusing on basic counseling skills. We applied confirmatory factor analysis and tested internal consistency, convergent validity, and criterion validity. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis supported the three-factor structure of the CASES-R scales for basic counseling skills. The scales provided acceptable to good internal consistency (α = 0.77 - 0.87). Significant relations with general self-efficacy (r =.23, p <.01) provided first indication for convergent validity. We also found a significant correlation of the CASES-R with positive affect (r =.22), and significant correlations of some subscales with empathetic concern (r =.16 -.21) and mastery goal orientation (r =.16), overall supporting criterion validity. The CASES-R scales proved to be sensitive to change, as participants' scores were higher after (M = 6.18, SD = 1.05) than before (M = 5.37, SD = 1.16) counseling training (F(1, 309) = 42.27, p <.001). CONCLUSION: We found support for the proposed factor structure and reliability of the German version of the three CASES-R scales, indicating its suitability for use in basic counseling settings. Future research should further examine the scales' validity.

The concise measurement of clinical communication skills: Validation of a short scale.

Objective: There is a lack of brief rating scales for the reliable assessment of psychotherapeutic skills, which do not require intensive rater training and/or a high level of expertise. Thus, the objective is to validate a 14-item version of the Clinical Communication Skills Scale (CCSS-S). Methods: Using a sample of N = 690 video-based ratings of role-plays with simulated patients, we calculated a confirmatory factor analysis and an exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), assessed convergent validities, determined inter-rater reliabilities and compared these with those who were either psychology students, advanced psychotherapy trainees, or experts. Results: Correlations with other competence rating scales were high (rs > 0.86-0.89). The intraclass correlations ranged between moderate and good [ICC(2,2) = 0.65-0.80], with student raters yielding the lowest scores. The one-factor model only marginally replicated the data, but the internal consistencies were excellent (α = 0.91-95). The ESEM yielded a two-factor solution (Collaboration and Structuring and Exploration Skills). Conclusion: The CCSS-S is a brief and valid rating scale that reliably assesses basic communication skills, which is particularly useful for psychotherapy training using standardized role-plays. To ensure good inter-rater reliabilities, it is still advisable to employ raters with at least some clinical experience. Future studies should further investigate the one- or two-factor structure of the instrument.