The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Psychiatry
Sec. Personality Disorders
Volume 15 - 2024 |
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1389992
Psychometric Properties of Comprehensive Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor Competency Assessment Scales in Psychodynamic Psychotherapy for Borderline Personality Disorder
Provisionally accepted- 1 Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
- 2 Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
- 3 Department of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
- 4 Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
- 5 Division of Psychoanalysis in Psychiatry, Psychotherapy Section, Indonesian Psychiatric Association, Jakarta, Indonesia
- 6 Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia
- 7 Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
Background: Psychodynamic psychotherapy is a type of psychotherapy for individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD). However, competency in conducting effective psychodynamic psychotherapy for BPD is difficult to evaluate. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the psychometric properties of a comprehensive scale to assess cognitive, affective, and psychomotor competencies (CS-CAPC) in psychodynamic psychotherapy for BPD. Methods: This is a qualitative study. The first step used the Delphi technique to gather experts' opinions on the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor competencies necessary to conduct psychodynamic psychotherapy for BPD. The experts comprised three psychotherapists, seven psychiatrists with experience in psychotherapy, and nine teaching staff. A panel discussion was conducted to obtain qualitative data. Thematic data analysis was adopted, and content validity testing was used to analyze the content validity of the CS-CAPC in psychodynamic psychotherapy for BPD. Results: The CS-CAPC comprised two scales assessing two specific competencies in psychodynamic psychotherapy for BPD: The first scale, the psychodynamic formulation competency assessment scale (PF-CAS), comprised six items, including the case description, etiology, and potential course of therapy. The second scale, the practical competency assessment scale (PC-CAS) for psychodynamic psychotherapy for BPD, comprised 12 items, including building a therapeutic alliance, performing psychodynamic interventions while working through the therapeutic process, and closing the session. The scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) for the PF-CAS was 0.981, and that for the PC-CAS in psychodynamic psychotherapy for BPD was 1.00. Conclusion: The CS-CAPC in psychodynamic psychotherapy for BPD had good validity in assessing individual competency in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains.
Keywords: psychodynamic psychotherapy, Borderline Personality Disorder, assessment scale, validity, Psychometric
Received: 22 Feb 2024; Accepted: 20 Nov 2024.
Copyright: © 2024 Lukman, Wiguna, Soemantri, Menaldi, Elvira, Sutanto, Sapiie, Kekalih, Noviasari, Rizki and Giyani. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Petrin Redayani Lukman, Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.