Engaging hard to engage clients: A Q methodological study involving clinical psychologists

Abstract

This research uses Q methodology to collate a number of techniques, and to investigate what techniques are used to encourage engagement across a number of clinical psychology specialities. Eleven groups of participants from different clinical specialities were interviewed in order to develop a set of 51 statements reflecting engagement techniques that clinicians felt that they were likely to use with 'hard to engage' clients. Seventy-five participants from a similar range of specialities were then asked to Q sort these statements and provide other demographic information. Forty-four participants returned completed Q sorts which were factor analysed by a tailored program (PQ Method) to investigate how the statements fall into patterns that reflect ways clinicians approach engagement. Varimax rotation produced five factors, four of which were able to be interpreted by participant information and comments. These accounts were taken back to some of the initial participants for 'reflexive correction' (Stainton Rogers, 1995). The four factor patterns are discussed in relation to existing literature and the research questions. These identified factors are: (i) the client focused approach; (ii) the interpersonal professional; (iii) the 'eclectic' or systemic approach; (iv) the expert listener. The implications for training, clinical practice and research are discussed.

Therapists’ perspectives on optimal treatment for pathological narcissism.

“…Of these 69 prospective participants, 49% went on to complete the study, yielding a participant sample of 34 psychotherapists. This sample size is consistent with Q-methodology (prioritizing phenomenological subjectivity over generalizability; McKeown & Thomas, 1988;Watts & Stenner, 2012), and with other Q-method investigations of clinicians' perspectives (e.g., Lister & Gardner, 2006;Schottenbauer, Arnkoff, Glass, & Gray, 2006;Weis, Schottenbauer, & Gray, 2009). Indeed, a systematic review of recently published Q-methodological studies found an average participant sample size of N ϭ 40 (range ϭ 26 to 103; Dziopa & Ahern, 2011).…”

Transforming Research Methods in the Social Sciences

“…We also demonstrated the collection and analysis of Q data in a way that we hope will encourage researchers to attempt their own study. Q has proven to be a good method to study sensitive issues (Mckenzie & Swartz, 2011) and sensitive populations (Jones et al, 2003) and is thus conducive to pro grammes of research that are used as inputs into actionoriented processes (Lister & Gardner, 2006). Q is particularly well suited to ensuring that minority or quiet voices are heard (Pike, Wright, Wink & Fletcher, 2015).…”

A scoping review of Q-methodology in healthcare research

“…The majority of studies (n = 184, 63.7%) delivered the Q-sorting task face-to-face, with one study [ 114 ] allowing participants to take the Q-sorting task away and return their Q-sorts within 3 weeks. Eighteen studies (6.2%) administered the Q-sorting task via mail.…”