Aims: The COVID-19 pandemic and consequent extreme restrictions imposed by governments across the world forced psychotherapists to abruptly change their working modality. The first aim of the current study was to assess psychotherapists’ self-perceptions (i.e., affective and cognitive perceptions about their self and their self in relation to clients) when providing telepsychotherapy during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. The second aim was to explore the associations between psychotherapists’ self-perceptions, characteristics, and clinical practices.Method: An online survey was administered to 281 Italian licensed psychotherapists (Mage=45.15; SD=10.2; 83.6% female) between April 5 and May 10, 2020. The survey comprised ad-hoc questions that were designed to collect sociodemographic details and information related to working practices. Moreover, a semantic differential (SD) scale was developed to assess psychotherapists’ self-perceptions, and a factor analysis was performed from the SD items.Results: The SD scale showed an overall trend of positive psychotherapist self-perception during telepsychotherapy, despite reports of greater fatigue and directive and talkative behavior during sessions. Four SD factors accounted for 45% of the variance: “Affective Availability,” “Attitude Predisposition,” “Well-being,” and “Interventionism.” Scores on the first three factors were indicative of psychotherapists’ Positive vs. Negative self-perception. A comparison of the Positive and Negative attitudinal profiles using the chi-squared test with Yates’s correction and a Monte Carlo simulation found that psychotherapists with a Positive profile reported greater satisfaction with the telematic modality and were more likely to perceive that their clients were able to maintain privacy during sessions.Conclusion: The results suggest that Italian psychotherapists have been able to promptly adapt to the imposed telematic modality during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, they may have attempted to compensate for their physical distance from clients by intervening more during sessions. These findings may support psychotherapists who are currently practicing and inform future practitioners who are considering the use of telematic treatment as a routine component of psychotherapeutic care.
A particularly controversial aspect in the field of personality assessment is the use of self-report measures, versus clinicians' evaluations, for diagnosing personality disorder (PD). No studies have systematically documented the agreement between these sources for the entire array of DSM-5 PDs using comprehensive measures and experienced clinicians' judgments. The present work fills this gap by indexing the agreement between patients' self-descriptions and clinicians' judgments, relying on standardized and thorough PD instruments. The Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-200 (SWAP-200; Westen & Shedler, 1999a, 1999b) and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (Millon, Davis, & Millon, 1997) were both completed in a clinical series of 56 adult outpatients. Analyses highlighted moderate correlations between the two measures for the 10 DSM-5 PDs (Mdn = .35). Agreement was highest for psychological features that are more easily observable by the clinicians. Furthermore, results revealed problematic discriminant validity between the two instruments.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-fifth Edition's (DSM-5) Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) was introduced as a dimensional rating of impairments in self-and interpersonal functioning, and the LPFS-Brief Form (LPFS-BF) was the first published corresponding self-report. The updated LPFS-BF 2.0 has been translated into several languages and international research supports many of the instrument's psychometric properties; however, its measurement invariance has only been evaluated across a few countries. This study expands previous studies as an introductory step in a global evaluation of the LPFS-BF 2.0s measurement invariance. Archival data (N = 5,618, 57% female) from seven countries (
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.