CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsCounseling Practices and SupervisionReliability and Agreement in Measurement

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rater effects in evaluating therapist competencies using structured case reports: A mixed-methods study

Chen, Yue, Shi, Yun, Lu, Yun·2025·Psychotherapy Research
DOI 10.1080/10503307.2024.2447781
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: This study applied a mixed-methods approach to investigate rater effects that might affect case report evaluation in China. Method: In the quantitative phase, we randomly assigned 210 mental health professionals to the experienced or novice ratee condition to rate the same structured case report on assessment and formulation, intervention strategy, relationship, and self-reflection. The qualitative phase was subsequently conducted to help make sense of the results. We interviewed twelve supervisors about how they would rate a case report and factors they thought would influence their evaluation. Results: Linear model with non-constant variances revealed that the manipulation of ratee experience did not significantly bias ratings. Raters whose self-identified theoretical orientation aligned with that of the report provided higher and less dispersed ratings for intervention strategy and therapeutic relationship competencies. As their years of experience increased, theoretically congruent raters tended to give lower and more dispersed ratings. Thematic analysis revealed highly variable cognitive processes, and identified rater theoretical expertise, evaluation context, rater subjectivity and dual relationships as important factors to consider. Conclusion: This study indicate that theoretically congruent raters would be desirable, but raters with more years of experience should be cautioned against giving stringent ratings for theoretically familiar cases.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10503307.2024.2447781

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Lu, Y., Liu, M., Gu, T., & Zhu, X. (2024). Assessment of professional competence for clinical and counseling psychology professionals. Journal of Psychological Science, 47(1), 237–245.
  2. 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2010.12.013 · DOI
  3. Wang, M., Jiang, G., Yan, Y., & Zhou, Z. (2015). The way for certifying counselors and psychotherapists in China. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 20(07), 503–509.
  4. Zhu, X., Lu, Y., & Tang, W. (2022). Xinli zixunshi de zhuanye xunlian [Professional training of psychological counselors]. In F. Fan, X. Zhu, & J. He (Eds.), Zixun xinli xue [Counseling psychology]. (pp. 465-489). East China Normal University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Chen, Y., Shi, Y., & Lu, Y.
Affiliations
Zhejiang University (CN)
Corresponding author
Lu, Yun
ORCID
Venue
Psychotherapy Research
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2025-01-07
Volume
35
Issue
8
Pages
1371-1382
ISSN
  • 1050-3307 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4381
DOI
10.1080/10503307.2024.2447781
OpenAlex
W4406189204
Semantic Scholar
216801246d5e701f0d4cbdf9528508672fae46b7
Cited by
1
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 1
FWCI
0.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychotherapy Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
rater effects, rater experience, rater subjectivity, dual relationships, therapeutic relationship, intervention strategies, rater bias
MeSH terms
Adult, China, Clinical Competence, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Observer Variation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rater effects in evaluating therapist competencies using structured case reports: A mixed-methods study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10503307.2024.2447781
The paper
Chen, Y., Shi, Y., & Lu, Y. (2025). Rater effects in evaluating therapist competencies using structured case reports: A mixed-methods study. Psychotherapy Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2024.2447781