Group schema therapy rating scale - revised (GSTRS-R)

Zarbock, Gerhard; Farrell, Joan M.; Schikowski, A.; Heimann, I.; Shaw, Ida A.; Reiss, Neele; Verhagen, Stijn; Lee, Christopher; Muste, Eelco H.; Arntz, Arnoud; Bastick, Emily

doi:10.4225/23/585a265e14ab8

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sessions were rated on the presence and quality of 37 elements of ImRs and averaged, resulting in an adherence (number of present elements) and competence (1 = not provided according to the protocol to 4 = intervention was provided well by the therapist) score. GST delivery was rated with the Group Schema Therapy Rating Scale – Revised (Zarbock et al, 2014 ) by averaging adherence (number of present elements) and competence (0 = very poor to 6 = excellent) scores for 28 items on general therapist behavior, limited reparenting, group climate, structure, and therapist team quality.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trauma-focused and personality disorder treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid cluster C personality disorder: a randomized clinical trial

van den End,

Beekman,

Dekker

et al. 2024

European Journal of Psychotraumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is associated with high rates of cluster C personality disorders (PD), which may negatively affect PTSD treatment. It is unknown whether concurrent treatment for PTSD and comorbid PD leads to superior treatment effects, compared to standard trauma-focused treatment. Objective: The objective was to test the efficacy of adding personality disorder treatment (group schema therapy; GST) to individual trauma-focused treatment (imagery rescripting; ImRs). Method: A two-arm randomized clinical trial (1:1 allocation ratio) was conducted between 2018 and 2023 at two sites of a mental health institution in the Netherlands. Raters were blind to treatment allocation. Adult outpatients with PTSD and comorbid cluster C personality disorders were randomized to receive either ImRs (12–18 sessions) or ImRs + GST (12–18 ImRs + 52–58 GST). The main outcome was PTSD severity one year after start of treatment measured with the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5. Results: Of 130 patients (mean [SD] age = 40.6 [11.2], 110 [85%] females), 66 were assigned to ImRs and 64 to ImRs + GST. At 12 months, there were large decreases in PTSD severity ( d ImRs = 2.42, 95%CI = 1.97–2.87; d ImRs + GST = 2.44, 95%CI = 1.99–2.90), but there was no significant difference between conditions ( d = 0.02, 95%CI = −0.33–0.36, p = .944). Reductions in personality disorder symptoms and all other secondary outcomes were observed in both conditions. There were no significant differences between conditions on any of the secondary outcomes at 12 months. Conclusion: The more intensive concurrent trauma-focused and personality disorder treatment (ImRs + GST) was not superior to trauma-focused treatment alone (ImRs) for patients with PTSD and comorbid CPD. This suggests that trauma-focused treatment is the preferred primary treatment in patients presenting with both internalizing personality disorder and PTSD, reserving the stepping up to more intensive psychotherapy aimed at the personality disorder as a second line of treatment. Trial registration:

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trauma-focused and personality disorder treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid cluster C personality disorder: a randomized clinical trial

van den End,

Beekman,

Dekker

et al. 2024

European Journal of Psychotraumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Master psychology students will be trained by ST and DBT experts by using session recordings not used in the final adherence rating to practice with the instruments. Individual ST sessions will be rated on an adapted version of the Therapy Adherence and Competence scale for ST for BPD [111] and group ST sessions will be rated on the Group Schema Therapy Rating Scale -Revised [112]. Individual DBT sessions will be rated on the Dutch translation of the observer-rated version of the DBT Adherence Checklist for Individual Therapy [113].…”

Section: Therapists Training and Supervisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards optimal treatment selection for borderline personality disorder patients (BOOTS): a study protocol for a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing schema therapy and dialectical behavior therapy

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Specialized evidence-based treatments have been developed and evaluated for borderline personality disorder (BPD), including Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) and Schema Therapy (ST). Individual differences in treatment response to both ST and DBT have been observed across studies, but the factors driving these differences are largely unknown. Understanding which treatment works best for whom and why remain central issues in psychotherapy research. The aim of the present study is to improve treatment response of DBT and ST for BPD patients by a) identifying patient characteristics that predict (differential) treatment response (i.e., treatment selection) and b) understanding how both treatments lead to change (i.e., mechanisms of change). Moreover, the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DBT and ST will be evaluated. Methods The BOOTS trial is a multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in a routine clinical setting in several outpatient clinics in the Netherlands. We aim to recruit 200 participants, to be randomized to DBT or ST. Patients receive a combined program of individual and group sessions for a maximum duration of 25 months. Data are collected at baseline until three-year follow-up. Candidate predictors of (differential) treatment response have been selected based on the literature, a patient representative of the Borderline Foundation of the Netherlands, and semi-structured interviews among 18 expert clinicians. In addition, BPD-treatment-specific (ST: beliefs and schema modes; DBT: emotion regulation and skills use), BPD-treatment-generic (therapeutic environment characterized by genuineness, safety, and equality), and non-specific (attachment and therapeutic alliance) mechanisms of change are assessed. The primary outcome measure is change in BPD manifestations. Secondary outcome measures include functioning, additional self-reported symptoms, and well-being. Discussion The current study contributes to the optimization of treatments for BPD patients by extending our knowledge on “Which treatment – DBT or ST – works the best for which BPD patient, and why?”, which is likely to yield important benefits for both BPD patients (e.g., prevention of overtreatment and potential harm of treatments) and society (e.g., increased economic productivity of patients and efficient use of treatments). Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register, NL7699, registered 25/04/2019 - retrospectively registered.

show abstract

The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Group Schema Therapy Rating Scale – Revised

Bastick

Bot

Verhagen

et al. 2018

Behav. Cogn. Psychother.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Group schema therapy rating scale - revised (GSTRS-R)

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Trauma-focused and personality disorder treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid cluster C personality disorder: a randomized clinical trial

Trauma-focused and personality disorder treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid cluster C personality disorder: a randomized clinical trial

Towards optimal treatment selection for borderline personality disorder patients (BOOTS): a study protocol for a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing schema therapy and dialectical behavior therapy

The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Group Schema Therapy Rating Scale – Revised

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About