Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
•Competence measures demonstrated good interrater reliability.•Technical and global competence were not completely distinct; yet.•Some facets of technical and global competence may be empirically distinct.
Although technical (quality of delivering techniques from a specific treatment) and global (general clinical expertise) competence are believed to be important ingredients of successful psychosocial treatment with youth, there have been few empirical efforts to measure both dimensions. Efforts to understand the role that each competence dimension plays in the process and outcome of youth treatment starts with determining whether the dimensions can be measured separately. This study examined whether scores from measures designed to assess technical and global competence were distinct. Treatment sessions (N = 603) from 38 youths (M age = 9.84 years, SD = 1.65; 60.5% White; 52.6% male) treated for primary anxiety problems within a randomized effectiveness trial were coded. Four coders used observational measures designed to assess technical competence, global competence, protocol adherence, and the alliance. Mean item interrater reliability was .70 (SD = .09) for technical competence and .66 (SD = .05) for global competence. While most components of global competence were distinct from technical competence scores, two components showed redundancy (r > .70). Scores on both competence measures were empirically distinct (r < .70) from scores on measures of protocol adherence and the alliance. Although the measures did not fully distinguish between technical and global competence, our findings do indicate that some components of technical and global competence may provide unique information about competence.