ArticlePloS one2026
The specificity of psychotherapeutic competence: A study protocol on the development of facilitative interpersonal skills across professional pathways.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionFacilitative interpersonal skills (FIS) are widely used as an operationalization of therapists' interpersonal competence. However, the degree to which FIS are specific outcomes of formal psychotherapy training or instead reflect more general abilities developed across different professional pathways or outside of any formal training is unclear. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To test whether psychotherapy students show a stronger stage-related increase in FIS levels than students from other fields, this study protocol outlines a cross-sectional cohort design in which FIS levels are assessed at three training stages (entry university level, end of bachelor, end of master) across four professional pathways. The group comparisons include (1) psychotherapy students as the reference group, (2) nursing and (3) teacher education students as comparison groups with high interpersonal demands but without mental health training, and (4) students from the disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) as a baseline group with low interpersonal demands and no mental health training. We will use linear mixed-effects models with professional pathway and training stage as fixed effects. The primary test will evaluate the fixed effects of the factors professional pathway and training stage, and their interaction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Compared to previous studies, our non-clinical, non-interventionist design eliminates any risk of harm to patients and removes variance associated with patient and dyadic factors. Approval has been obtained from the Ethics Commission at Sigmund Freud Private University Vienna. Data and analysis scripts will be shared via open-access repositories. We intend to disseminate results through at least three peer-reviewed publications: primary analyses, secondary analyses, and a theoretical synthesis on implications for psychotherapy training and interprofessional competence.
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.