Structured Diagnostic Interviews in Psychotherapy Training: Trainees’ Beliefs About Interviews and Their Relationship to Overall Interview Satisfaction

Authors

  • Sebastian Palmer Orcid
    Department of Psychotherapy and Systems Neuroscience, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy Outpatient Clinic, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany
  • Bertram Walter Orcid
    Department of Psychotherapy and Systems Neuroscience, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany
  • Christiane Hermann Orcid
    Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy Outpatient Clinic, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; Department of Clinical Psychology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany
  • Rudolf Stark Orcid
    Department of Psychotherapy and Systems Neuroscience, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy Outpatient Clinic, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany
  • Andrea Hermann Orcid
    Department of Psychotherapy and Systems Neuroscience, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy Outpatient Clinic, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany

Abstract

Background: Structured diagnostic interviews (SDIs) are frequently used in science and are highly recommended for diagnosing mental disorders in clinical practice. However, the actual SDI familiarity and use among psychotherapy practitioners is limited. To identify opportunities for training improvement and ensure a frequent SDI application by future practitioners, data on SDI experiences and beliefs among current psychotherapy trainees is essential. Method: N = 233 psychotherapy trainees completed an online survey that included questions about their SDI experiences, use, beliefs, and their estimation of patient SDI satisfaction and acceptance. In addition, adherence to psychotherapeutic orientation and personality factors were assessed. Correlation between SDI satisfaction and familiarity was computed. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to predict trainees’ SDI satisfaction by beliefs about SDIs. Exploratory correlations between SDI satisfaction, adherence to psychotherapeutic orientations, and personality factors were analyzed. Results: SDI familiarity was significantly related to trainees’ overall SDI satisfaction. Both positive (e.g., “SDIs are efficient”) and negative (e.g., “SDIs disturb the relationship to patients”) beliefs about SDIs predicted trainees’ overall satisfaction. Small relationships were found between SDI satisfaction and adherence to psychotherapeutic orientation, but none to personality factors. Conclusion: Psychotherapy training programs should provide sufficient opportunity for SDI practice to promote trainee satisfaction. Training providers should address trainees’ beliefs and concerns, underline advantages of SDIs, and inform about actual SDI acceptance among patients to resolve prejudice. Trainees’ personality appears to be less relevant to SDI satisfaction, but further investigations are needed. The findings have important implications for overcoming barriers to the use of structured diagnostic interviews.