Transcript Simple Green Template - University of Strathclyde

Monitoring
Communicative
Contact
Contact and Connection
Glasgow 2014
17/07/2015
Mathias Dekeyser
Garry Prouty
Robert Elliott
Mia Leijssen
University of Leuven
Psychosociaal Centrum Leuven
17/07/2015
Monitoring Communicative Contact
1. What is contact and why monitor it?
2. What measures of contact are there?
3. What can we use those measures for?
3
Monitoring Communicative Contact
1. What is contact and why monitor it?
• Rogers
• Prouty
• Dinacci
2. What measures of contact are there?
3. What can we use those measures for?
4
Rogers (1957): core condition of change
□
Psychological contact
□
□
□
“a minimal relationship”
“each makes some perceived difference in
the experiential field of the other”
Monitoring contact to check whether the
core conditions are met.
5
Prouty (1994): psychological function
□
3 psychological contact functions
◊
◊
Awareness
◊
External world: Reality Contact
◊
Internal world: Affective Contact
Expression
◊
□
Communicative Contact
Monitoring contact to check ...
□
when contact reflections are appropriate;
□
if Pre-Therapy really works.
6
Dinacci (1997): communication
□
Observing psychological contact through:
□
□
□
□
client reactivity = “communicative sign”
meaningfulness, verbality, (non)verbal
coordination (= language pragmatics)
touch
Monitoring contact to check if PreTherapy really works.
7
Monitoring Communicative Contact
1. What is contact and why monitor it?
2. What measures of contact are there?
•
PTRS (Hinterkopf & Prouty-v1; Prouty-v2)
•
ECPI (Dinacci; Brenner-additions)
•
CCS (Dekeyser, Elliott, Leijssen)
3. What can we use those measures for?
8
Pre-Therapy Rating Scale (PTRS)
□
□
□
Counting markers in annotated
transcripts to measure two dimensions:
□
Reality/Communication (verbal)
□
Affective contact (verbal+nonverbal)
High inter-rater agreement is possible
Increased scores reportedly associated
with carer’s observed change
9
Evaluation Criterion for Pre-Therapy Interview (ECPI)
◊
Detecting and scoring client reactivity in video
recording, to measure
◊
◊
◊
◊
Reactivity (moderate reliability)
Elements of [language pragmatics] (low to
moderate)
◊
Touch, eye contact (low to high reliability)
◊
General Index
Language related subscales associated with
measures of pragmatic performance (ALICC)
Increased scores reportedly associated with
carer’s observed change
10
Communicative Contact Scale (CCS)
◊
□
□
□
Self-report perceived communicative contact in
the other, with two subscales
◊
Meaningfulness
◊
Reactiveness
Developed with help of expert group, tested on
parents, students, (therapists, clients)
Meaning of the (sub)scales may vary
Positively associated with evaluation of
interaction (self-report), but not with affective
color or clinical symptoms (high level
functioning clients GAF/BSI scores)
11
CCS Meaningfulness plotted by child age
(N=267)
12
Communicative Contact Scale (CCS)
□
□
All scores predicted by
□
Acquaintance with the observed
□
Mindfulness of observer (acting with awareness)
□
Child ability to involve the parent (-4y)
□
Child pragmatic performance (4y+)
□
Empathic attitude (association varies with role of observer)
□
Working alliance of reporting therapist and observed client
Meaningfulness predicted by
□
age of observed child – logarithmic curve
□
mutual attunement of parent and child (-4y)
13
Monitoring Communicative Contact
1. What is contact and why monitor it?
2. What measures of contact are there?
3. What can we use those measures for?
• Research on the concept of contact
• Clinical research: outcome, process
• Practice and training
14
Research on the concept of contact
- Do people develop (implicit) mental
models of communicative contact?
- Do we assess contact differently according
to the situation?
- How is the development of contact skills
related to the development of language,
mentalisation, social skills?
- How do we naturally assess reality contact
and affective contact in another person?
Clinical research: outcome
□
Effect sizes are promising, but larger studies are
needed.
□
□
□
likely to increase in 86% of the cases, and likely to
be higher than 74% of similar patients.
Development of PTRS/ECPI norm scores would be
helpful.
Can we think of less labor-intensive approaches?
Other, indirect measures?
□
□
After treatment, the PTRS-Reality/ ECPI test score was
Nurses in contact work training have reported
symptom decrease in patients (Ondracek, 2004)
Where are clients’ qualitative reports? (Traynor, in
preparation)
Clinical research: process
□
□
PTRS and ECPI offer great detail of withinsession process
□
Much more is possible than we do now.
□
Can we build a collection of coded transcripts?
CCS can be used to analyse the evolution
of perceived contact across
interactions/sessions
□
Can CCS be used to discriminate between
phases in a session?
PTRS: 1 session (schizoaffective, mental disability)
(Prouty, 1994)
120
100
80
Reality
Affect
Social Communication
60
40
20
0
start
middle
end
18
PTRS: 1 session (female, schizophrenia)
(Van Werde, 1993; Van den Mooter, 2006)
16
14
12
Reality
Affect
Social Communication
10
8
6
4
2
0
start
middle
end
19
CCS: 1 session (12 clients)
3,00
2,50
C4.GG
C6.JG
C8.EDS
2,00
C8.MV E
C9.BE
1,50
C9.IV H
C14.MK
1,00
C14.A LT
C14.MM
0,50
C10.PV DG
C9.LP
C8.TR
0,00
start
rest of session
20
Practice and training
□
Can studying PTRS/ECPI coded
transcripts be part of training?
□
□
PTRS more closely related to theory (Prouty)
CCS scale can be used to:
□
give a quick feel of the topic
□
discuss cases and concepts
□
support intervision/supervision?
21
[email protected]
22