Assessing Patients’ Cognitive Therapy Skills: Initial Evaluation of the Competencies of Cognitive Therapy Scale

The papers reporting on these measures were published after data collection for this study was underway.

In a parallel analysis, one compares the eigenvalues obtained from an EFA to the corresponding values obtained from a randomly generated dataset with the same number of observations and variables. The number of factors to retain is indicated by the number of eigenvalues from the observed data that exceed the corresponding values from the random dataset. For the parallel analysis of CCTS-SR at intake, the first two eigenvalues from the observed data were 10.38 and 2.08; the values generated by the parallel analysis were 2.73 and 2.41. For the parallel analysis of CCTS-SR at the post-treatment assessment, the first two eigenvalues from the observed data were 15.66 and 1.70; the values generated by the parallel analysis were 3.09 and 2.69. Finally, for the parallel analysis of CCTS-TR, the first two eigenvalues from the observed data were 6.86 and .73; the values generated by the parallel analysis were 1.96 and 1.61. Thus, each analysis suggested a one factor solution.

Because the comparison of patients at intake with control participants was limited to those patients who went on to complete treatment, the difference we detected could have been due in part to differences in CCTS-SR scores among patients who did and did not complete treatment. However, when we compared the control sample to all patients at intake, we still found a comparably large, significant difference in CCTS-SR scores (d = 1.14, t (118) = 6.19, p < .0001). Moreover, treatment completers and dropouts did not differ in initial skill level (d = .34, t(75) = 1.47, p = .14).

For each of the relations of the CCTS-SR at intake reported in Table 1, we also examined whether these same relations were evident when we limited the sample to those patients who went on to complete treatment. All significant effects in Table 1 remained significant, with the sole exception of the relation of the CCTS-SR and WOR quality scores, which was a non-significant trend.

One might be concerned that our matched control sample was limited to the 44 patients who completed treatment. We reran these analyses in a combined, intake sample of the 44 controls and the 44 patients who eventually completed treatment. All significant relationships remained when examining the Spearman correlations between WOR quality and the CCTS-SR after partialling out depressive symptoms.