↓ Skip to main content

Helpers' Self-Assessment Biases Before and after Helping Skills Training

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Helpers' Self-Assessment Biases Before and after Helping Skills Training
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01377
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marine Jaeken, Emmanuelle Zech, Céline Brison, Lesley L. Verhofstadt, Nady Van Broeck, Moïra Mikolajczak

Abstract

Several studies have shown that therapists are generally biased concerning their performed helping skills, as compared to judges' ratings. As clients' ratings of therapists' performance are better predictors of psychotherapy effectiveness than judges' ratings, this study examined the validity and effectiveness of a helping skills training program at reducing novice helpers' self-enhancement biases concerning their helping skills, in comparison to their clients' ratings. Helping skills were assessed by three objective measures (a knowledge multiple choice test, a video test and a role play), as well as by a self- and peer-reported questionnaire. In addition, some performed helping skills' correlates (relationship quality, session quality, and helpers' therapeutic attitudes) were assessed both by helpers and their simulated helpees. Seventy-two sophomores in psychology participated to this study, 37 being assigned to a 12-h helping skills training program, and 35 to a control group. Helpers were expected to assess the aforementioned performed helping skills and correlates as being better than their helpees' assessments at pretest, thus revealing a self-enhancement bias. At posttest, we expected that trained helpers would objectively exhibit better helping skills than untrained helpers while beginning to underestimate their performance, thus indexing a self-diminishment bias. In contrast, we hypothesized that untrained helpers would continue to overestimate their performance. Our hypotheses were only partly confirmed but results reflected a skilled-unaware pattern among trainees. Trained helpers went either from a pretest overestimation to a posttest equivalence (performed helping skills and performed therapeutic attitudes), or from a pretest equivalence to a posttest underestimation (performed session quality and performed therapeutic relationship), as compared to helpees' ratings. Results showed that trained helpers improved on all helping skills objective measures and that helpees' perceptions of their performance had increased at posttest. In conclusion, helping skills training leads helpers not only to improve their helping skills but also to have more doubts about their skills, two variables associated with psychotherapy outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 26%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 14 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Unspecified 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 17 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,624,598
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,274
of 30,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,751
of 316,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#158
of 578 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,580 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 578 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.