Author(s)

Anette Jervelycke¹, Billy Larsson¹, Torsten Norlander^1,2*

¹Center for Research and Development, Evidens University College, Göteborg, Sweden.
²Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Solna, Sweden.

Background: The guidance of prospective therapists focused on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is most often made by groups of four students. However, learning therapist skills is a sensitive process that will be affected by the processes which occur within the group. Objective: The aim was to examine prospective psychotherapists’ attitudes to group assessments based on the revised version of the Cognitive Therapy Scale (CTS-R). Method: Participants were 56 students with an average age of 45.65 years (range = 31 - 64). They were recruited from psychotherapy training at the Gothenburg University and the Evidens University College in Sweden. A questionnaire was constructed in which the questions were answered by check on visual analogue scales (VAS). Results: A majority of students consisting of 38 participants (68%) had a very positive approach to group assessments, while a minority of 18 participants (32%) was more negative. Most crucial for how to answer the question of group assessments was whether they considered themselves as fairly evaluated by their student colleagues within the group and whether or not only the supervisor should make the assessments. The view of group assessments (negative or positive) was not related to age, gender, and level of education in CBT or profession. In addition, both groups had a very positive view of both the CTS-R and the supervisors. Conclusion: It was concluded that more studies with the same focus are needed to determine the extent to which the results are generalizable.

CBT Competences, CTS-R, Evaluation Process, Group Assessments, Prospective Psychotherapists

Jervelycke, A. , Larsson, B. and Norlander, T. (2017) Attitudes to Group Assessments: Prospective Psychotherapists’ Experiences of Being Assessed by Fellow Students. Open Journal of Medical Psychology, 6, 179-196. doi: 10.4236/ojmp.2017.63015.