ArticlePCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences2024
Development of the trainer skill evaluation scale for metacognitive training.
Article in PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development of the trainer skill evaluation scale for metacognitive training.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The purpose of this study is manifold: to develop a trainer skill rating scale for metacognitive training (MCT), to determine the difficulty level of the behavioral checklist, and to examine the reliability and validity of the MCT Trainer Skills Rating Scale. Method: In Study 1, an MCT trainer skill behavior checklist was developed with expert staff members, and a questionnaire was administered to MCT trainers. Item categorization was identical to that used in previous studies. In Study 2, a video was used to conduct the survey. All subjects were given a 1-hour training session, instructed on evaluating the MCT Trainer Skills Rating Scale, and asked to rate their trainer skills on a mock video designed for beginners and a mock video designed for advanced trainers. Result: In Study 1, responses from 49 respondents were obtained. The survey results showed that 72 items were classified similarly to previous studies. In Study 2, two pairs were randomly selected, and weighted kappa coefficients were calculated for the sub-items of the MCT Trainer Skills Rating Scale. High agreement was obtained with Conclusion: High reliability was obtained for all eight items of the MCT Trainer Skills Rating Scale created in this study. In addition, the video evaluation scores for the advanced trainer were significantly higher than those for the beginner trainer, suggesting that discriminant validity was confirmed among the criterion-related validity. These results confirm that the scale has both high reliability and validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.