The development and psychometric evaluation of the Questionnaire Epistemic Trust (QET): A self-report assessment of epistemic trust.
epistemic trust
personality functioning
psychometric evaluation
questionnaire
self-report
Journal
Clinical psychology & psychotherapy
ISSN: 1099-0879
Titre abrégé: Clin Psychol Psychother
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9416196
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Nov 2023
10 Nov 2023
Historique:
revised:
15
10
2023
received:
24
05
2023
accepted:
16
10
2023
medline:
10
11
2023
pubmed:
10
11
2023
entrez:
10
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Epistemic trust (ET) refers to the predisposition to trust information as authentic, trustworthy and relevant to the self. Epistemic distrust - resulting from early adversity - may interfere with openness to social learning within the therapeutic encounter, reducing the ability to benefit from treatment. The self-report Questionnaire Epistemic Trust (QET) is a newly developed instrument that aims to assess ET. This study presents the first results on the psychometric properties of the QET in both a community and a clinical sample. Our findings indicate that the QET is composed of four meaningful subscales with good to excellent internal consistency. The QET shows relevant associations with related constructs like personality functioning, symptom distress and quality of life. QET scores clearly distinguish between a clinical and community sample and are associated with the quality of the therapeutic alliance. The QET provides a promising, brief and user-friendly instrument that could be used for a range of clinical and research purposes. Future studies with larger samples are needed to strengthen construct validity and to investigate the value of the QET to predict differential treatment responses or to study mechanisms of change.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Anthoine, E., Moret, L., Regnault, A., Sebille, V., & Hardouin, J. B. (2014). Sample size used to validate a scale: A review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 176. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0176-2
Campbell, C., Tanzer, M., Saunders, R., Booker, T., Allison, E., Li, E., O'Dowda, C., Luyten, P., & Fonagy, P. (2021). Development and validation of a self-report measure of epistemic trust. PLoS ONE, 16(4), e0250264. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250264
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245-276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
Corriveau, K. H., Harris, P. L., Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., Arnott, B., Elliott, L., Liddle, B., Hearn, A., Vittorini, L., & de Rosnay, M. (2009). Young children's trust in their mother's claims: Longitudinal links with attachment security in infancy. Child Development, 80(3), 750-761. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01295.x
de Beurs, E., den Hollander-Gijsman, M. E., van Rood, Y. R., van der Wee, N. J., Giltay, E. J., van Noorden, M. S., van der Lem, R., van Fenema, E., & Zitman, F. G. (2011). Routine outcome monitoring in the Netherlands: Practical experiences with a web-based strategy for the assessment of treatment outcome in clinical practice. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.696
De Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. L. (2011). Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge university press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996214
Eagar, K., Trauer, T., & Mellsop, G. (2005). Performance of routine outcome measures in adult mental health care. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39(8), 713-718. https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01655.x
Egyed, K., Kiraly, I., & Gergely, G. (2013). Communicating shared knowledge in infancy. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1348-1353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612471952
Falkenstrom, F., Granstrom, F., & Holmqvist, R. (2014). Working alliance predicts psychotherapy outcome even while controlling for prior symptom improvement. Psychotherapy Research, 24(2), 146-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.847985
Fluckiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wampold, B. E., & Horvath, A. O. (2018). The alliance in adult psychotherapy: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychotherapy (Chicago, Ill.), 55(4), 316-340. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000172
Fonagy, P., & Allison, E. (2014). The role of mentalizing and epistemic trust in the therapeutic relationship. Psychotherapy (Chicago, Ill.), 51(3), 372-380. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036505
Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., & Allison, E. (2015). Epistemic petrification and the restoration of epistemic trust: A new conceptualization of borderline personality disorder and its psychosocial treatment. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29(5), 575-609. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2015.29.5.575
Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., Allison, E., & Campbell, C. (2017a). What we have changed our minds about: Part 2. Borderline personality disorder, epistemic trust and the developmental significance of social communication. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 4, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-017-0062-8
Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., Allison, E., & Campbell, C. (2017b). What we have changed our minds about: Part 1. Borderline personality disorder as a limitation of resilience. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 4, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-017-0061-9
Hatcher, R. L., & Gillaspy, J. A. (2006). Development and validation of a revised short version of the working Alliance inventory. Psychotherapy Research, 16(1), 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300500352500
Hopwood, C. J., Malone, J. C., Ansell, E. B., Sanislow, C. A., Grilo, C. M., McGlashan, T. H., et al. (2011). Personality assessment in DSM-5: Empirical support for rating severity, style, and traits. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25(3), 305-320. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2011.25.3.305
Horvath, A. O. (2005). The therapeutic relationship: Research and theory: An introduction to the special issue. Psychotherapy Research, 15(1-2), 3-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300512331339143
Horvath, A. O., & Symonds, B. D. (1991). Relation between working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(2), 139-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.38.2.139
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
Knapen, S., Hutsebaut, J., van Diemen, R., & Beekman, A. (2020). Epistemic trust as a psycho-marker for outcome in psychosocial interventions. Journal of Infant, Child & Adolescent Psychotherapy., 19(4), 417-426. https://doi.org/10.1080/15289168.2020.1812322
Knapen, S., van Diemen, R., Hutsebaut, J., Fonagy, P., & Beekman, A. (2022). Defining the concept and clinical features of epistemic trust: A Delphi study. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 210(4), 312-314. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000001446
Liotti, M., Milesi, A., Spitoni, G. F., Tanzilli, A., Speranza, A. M., Parolin, L., Campbell, C., Fonagy, P., Lingiardi, V., & Giovanardi, G. (2023). Unpacking trust: The Italian validation of the epistemic trust, mistrust, and credulity questionnaire (ETMCQ). PLoS ONE, 18(1), e0280328. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280328
Luyten, P., Campbell, C., Allison, E., & Fonagy, P. (2020). The Mentalizing approach to psychopathology: State of the art and future directions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 16, 297-325. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071919-015355
Mulder, C., Staring, A. B. P., Loos, J., Buwalda, V., Kuijpers, D., Sytema, S., & Wierdsma, A. I. (2004). De health of the nation outcome scales (HONOS) als instrument voor ‘routine outcome assessment’. /the health of the nation outcome scales (HONOS) in Dutch translation as an instrument for routine outcome assessment. Tijdschrift voor Psychiatrie, 273-284.
Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Ke, T. L. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159-168. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_4
Nugter, M. A., Engelsbel, F., Bahler, M., Keet, R., & van Veldhuizen, R. (2016). Outcomes of FLEXIBLE assertive community treatment (FACT) implementation: A prospective real life study. Community Mental Health Journal, 52(8), 898-907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-015-9831-2
OECD. OECD Guidelines on Measuring Trust, 2017.
Oldham, J. M. (2015). The alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. World Psychiatry, 14(2), 234-236. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20232
Peterson, R. A. (2000). A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis. Marketing Letters, 11(3), 261-275. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008191211004
Pirkis, J. E., Burgess, P. M., Kirk, P. K., Dodson, S., Coombs, T. J., & Williamson, M. K. (2005). A review of the psychometric properties of the health of the nation outcome scales (HoNOS) family of measures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 3, 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-3-76
Priebe, S., Huxley, P., Knight, S., & Evans, S. (1998). Application and results of the Manchester short assessment of quality of life (MANSA). The International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 45(1), 7-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/002076409904500102
Qualtrics. Provo; 2019.
Sauer, E. M., Anderson, M. Z., Gormley, B., Richmond, C. J., & Preacco, L. (2010). Client attachment orientations, working alliances, and responses to therapy: A psychology training clinic study. Psychotherapy Research, 20(6), 702-711. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2010.518635
Schroder-Pfeifer, P., Talia, A., Volkert, J., & Taubner, S. (2018). Developing an assessment of epistemic trust: A research protocol. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome., 21(3), 131. https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2018.330
Skodol, A. E., Bender, D. S., Oldham, J. M., Clark, L. A., Morey, L. C., Verheul, R., Krueger, R. F., & Siever, L. J. (2011). Proposed changes in personality and personality disorder assessment and diagnosis for DSM-5 part II: Clinical application. Personal Disord, 2(1), 23-40. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021892
Sokol, R., & Fisher, E. (2016). Peer support for the hardly reached: A systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 106(7), e1-e8. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303180
Stinckens, N., Ulburghs, A., & Claes, L. (2009). De werkalliantie als sleutelelement in het therapiegebeuren: Meting met behulp van de WAV-12, de Nederlandstalige verkorte versie van de Working Alliance Inventory. Tijdschrift Klinische Psychologie, 39, 44-60.
Verheul, R., Andrea, H., Berghout, C. C., Dolan, C., Busschbach, J. J., van der Kroft, P. J., et al. (2008). Severity indices of personality problems (SIPP-118): Development, factor structure, reliability, and validity. Psychological Assessment, 20(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.1.23
Weekers, L. C., Hutsebaut, J., & Kamphuis, J. H. (2019). The level of personality functioning scale-brief form 2.0: Update of a brief instrument for assessing level of personality functioning. [References]. Personality and Mental Health, 13(1), 3-14.
Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., Erikson, P., & ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in Health : the Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 8(2), 94-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x
Wing, J. K., Beevor, A. S., Curtis, R. H., Park, S. B., Hadden, S., & Burns, A. (1998). Health of the nation outcome scales (HoNOS). Research and development. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 172, 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.172.1.11