World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 – Interview (WHODAS-interview)

Dr David Hegarty

The World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) is a practical, generic assessment instrument that can measure health and disability at population level or in clinical practice (World Health Organisation (WHO), 2010).

Developer

Ustun, T.B, Kostanjsek, N., Chatterji, S., Rehm, J (Ed.). (2010). Measuring health and disability : manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (‎WHODAS 2.0)‎. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/measuring-health-and-disability-manual-for-who-disability-assessment-schedule-(-whodas-2.0)

References

American Psychiatric Association. Online Assessment Measures. (n.d.). Retrieved November 6, 2021, from https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM5_WHODAS-2-Self-Administered.pdf

World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 – Proxy (WHODAS-proxy)

Dr David Hegarty

The World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) is a practical, generic assessment instrument that can measure health and disability at population level or in clinical practice (World Health Organisation (WHO), 2010).

Developer

Ustun, T.B, Kostanjsek, N., Chatterji, S., Rehm, J (Ed.). (2010). Measuring health and disability : manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (‎WHODAS 2.0)‎. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/measuring-health-and-disability-manual-for-who-disability-assessment-schedule-(-whodas-2.0)

References

American Psychiatric Association. Online Assessment Measures. (n.d.). Retrieved November 6, 2021, from https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM5_WHODAS-2-Self-Administered.pdf

Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10)

Dr David Hegarty

The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10; Cohen, Kamarch, & Mermelstein,1983) is a popular tool for measuring psychological stress. It is a self-reported questionnaire that was designed to measure the degree to which situations in one’s life are appraised as stressful.

 

Developer

Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health: Claremont Symposium on applied social psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

References

Cohen, S., & Janicki-Deverts, D. (2012). Who’s stressed? Distributions of psychological stress in the United States in probability samples from 1983, 2006, and 20091. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6), 1320–1334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00900.x

Cohen, S., Kamarch, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385.

Cohen’s Laboratory for the Study of Stress, Immunity and Disease. (2021). Dr.Cohen’s Scales. Retrieved Oct 9, 2021, from https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/psychology/stress-immunity-disease-lab/scales/index.html

Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In S. Spacapan, & S. Oskamp (Eds.),The social psychology of health: Claremont symposium on applied social psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lee, E.-H. (2012). Review of the psychometric evidence of the perceived stress scale. Asian Nursing Research, 6(4), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2012.08.004

Taylor, J. M. (2015). Psychometric analysis of the Ten-Item Perceived Stress Scale. Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038100

Psychologist Norms for the Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL)

Hegarty, D., Buchanan, B. ( 2021, November 29).  Psychologist Norms for the Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL). NovoPsych

The Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL) is a 30 item self-report questionnaire designed to measure compassion fatigue, work satisfaction and burnout in helping professionals. Helping professionals are defined broadly, from those in health care settings, such as psychologists, nurses and doctors, to social service workers, teachers, police officers, firefighters or other first responders. It is useful for workers who perform emotional labour as well as professionals who are exposed to traumatic situations. While the scale is useful for many professionals, this paper outlines how NovoPsych created norms specific to Australian Psychologists, so that they can compare their experiences  at work to peers. 

Professional Quality of Life is the quality one feels in relation to one’s work as a helper. Both the positive and negative aspects of doing one’s job influence one’s professional quality of life. The ProQOL measures three aspects of professional quality of life: 

  • Compassion Satisfaction (pleasure you derive from being able to do your work well) 
  • Burnout (exhaustion, frustration, anger and depression related to work) 
  • Secondary Traumatic Stress (feeling fear in relation to work‐related primary or secondary trauma) 

The scale is particularly useful for professionals to self-monitor their satisfaction and as a prompt for self-care. With burnout and compassion fatigue being workplace hazards for psychologists it is worth considering how these professionals can monitor workplace well-being and respond to the inevitable challenges.  

Method

To determine the level of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue (burnout and secondary trauma) for psychologists, NovoPsych emailed its users in November 2020 and asked them to complete the ProQOL for self evaluation and research purposes. As a result, 245 psychologists completed the assessment and contributed to our normative data. 

Data Cleaning

To validate the integrity of the data, various anomalies were identified. Firstly, overall scores were assessed to see if there were any results that were significantly different (i.e. > 3 S.D. outside the mean) to other scores. There was only one result that was significantly higher (4.8 S.D. above the mean) than other scores, but upon closer inspection, this response indicated a high score in the secondary trauma scale, whereas the other scales were similar to all other scores. Therefore, this data was assumed to be valid and was not removed. When looking at the time taken to complete the assessment, there were some outliers (n = 3) where respondents took significantly longer (> 3 S.D.) than the mean (236 seconds) to complete the assessment. However, upon closer examination, these responses did appear to be legitimate given there was variety in the response pattern and the scores themselves were not outliers. Therefore, it was assumed that this could have been a busy psychologist who started to self-administer the assessment, got distracted, and came back to finish the assessment at a later stage. As a result, the responses were considered to be valid and were not removed.

Therefore, there were no responses removed as a result of this data tidying process and the final sample size for the NovoPsych ProQOL psychologist data was 245. This final data presented as an approximate normal distribution for the total scores (see Figure 1), although the time taken to complete data was very right-skewed (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. Distribution of total raw scores for NovoPsych ProQOL psychologist data. A theoretical normal distribution is shown in red.

Figure 2. Distribution of time taken to complete the ProQOL.

Results

The distribution of the raw scores for each of the subscales for the NovoPsych psychologist data for the ProQOL were approximately normally distributed (see Figure 3). However, it can be seen that the Compassion Satisfaction subscale appeared to have a higher score than both the Burnout and Secondary Trauma scales.  

Figure 3. Distribution of raw scores for each subscale of the NovoPsych ProQOL psychologist data. 

When the distribution of the percentiles are shown (see Figure 4), it can be seen that the distribution for both the Burnout and Secondary Trauma subscales are skewed left. According to the standard ProQOL norms (Stamm, 2010)  for “helping professionals” in general, the psychologists who completed the ProQOL in this sample were quite ‘burnt out’ and were suffering from an extreme amount of secondary trauma, with only 2 respondents being below the 50th percentile. Significantly, over 22% (n = 56) of respondents scored above the 95th percentile and over 52% (n = 129) of respondents scored above the 90th percentile for the Secondary Trauma subscale. The Compassion Satisfaction percentiles were more evenly distributed. 

Using the standard ProQOL norms, the percentiles for the Burnout and Secondary Trauma subscales are slightly unusual, indicating that they are not representative of the typical experience of psychologists. The raw scores for both these scales are quite well distributed and there doesn’t appear to be any significant floor or ceiling effects, although there are a few low scores on the Secondary Trauma subscale. However, when these scores are converted into percentiles using the standard ProQOL norms, especially for the Secondary Trauma subscale, they are very skewed. There could be two possible explanations for these results.

Firstly, all the psychologists who responded to the ProQOL during this time period are bordering on burnout and are suffering from quite significant secondary trauma. We therefore looked at de-identified self-assessment data collected from January 2021 to November 2021 to see any impact of time (given lockdowns and COVID), and did not find a significant difference. We therefore concluded that the sample in November 2020 was a representative sample. 

Secondly, it could be that the standard norms used for the ProQOL are inappropriate for use by psychologists. That is, the standard norms published on the ProQOL manual convert into percentiles that are too high.

Figure 4. The distribution of percentiles for the NovoPsych ProQOL psychologist data. 

Given these unusual findings, it is questionable as to whether the existing standard norms of the ProQOL are suitable for use amongst psychologists to monitor their wellbeing. Therefore, it was decided to use our own norms for the purposes of giving psychologists a better understanding of their own levels of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue. As a result of this process, we can now present the means and standard deviations for each subscale of the NovoPsych ProQOL psychologist data (see Table 1).

We also developed a percentile table for all subscales (see Table 2). This was developed by the Nearest-Rank method. 

Discussion

The standard ProQOL norms (Stamm, 2010) appear to be unsuitable for use by psychologists in monitoring their own wellbeing in the form of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue. This is due to calculated percentiles providing an apparent inflated sense of potential problems, particularly on the Burnout and Secondary Trauma subscales. As a result, the new norms developed by NovoPsych allow psychologists to monitor their compassion fatigue in a more reliable, accurate, and useful manner. All this analysis and data is synthesized and presented when a NovoPsych user self-administers the ProQOL or administers it to a client. 

References

Stamm, B.H. (2010). The Concise ProQOL Manual, 2nd Ed. Pocatello, ID: ProQOL.org. Retrieved November 13, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Beth-Stamm/publication/340033923_The_Concise_ProQOL_Manual_The_concise_manual_for_the_Professional_Quality_of_Life_Scale_2_nd_Edition/links/5e73a313299bf134dafd884f/The-Concise-ProQOL-Manual-The-concise-manual-for-the-Professional-Quality-of-Life-Scale-2-nd-Edition.pdf

The World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) – Self-Report Version

Dr David Hegarty

The World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) is a practical, generic assessment instrument that can measure health and disability at population level or in clinical practice (World Health Organisation (WHO), 2010).

Developer

Ustun, T.B, Kostanjsek, N., Chatterji, S., Rehm, J (Ed.). (2010). Measuring health and disability : manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (‎WHODAS 2.0)‎. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/measuring-health-and-disability-manual-for-who-disability-assessment-schedule-(-whodas-2.0)  

References

American Psychiatric Association. Online Assessment Measures. (n.d.). Retrieved November 6, 2021, from https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM5_WHODAS-2-Self-Administered.pdf  

Self-Compassion Scale – Short Form (SCS-SF)

Dr David Hegarty

The Self-Compassion Scale – Short Form (SCS-SF) is a 12-item self-report measure that is used by adults to measure their capacity for self-compassion – the ability to hold one’s feelings of suffering with a sense of warmth, connection and concern. 

Developer

Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff,K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and factorial validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. 18, 250-255.

References

Bratt, A., & Fagerström, C. (2020). Self-compassion in old age: confirmatory factor analysis of the 6-factor model and the internal consistency of the Self-compassion scale-short form. Aging & Mental Health, 24(4), 642–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2019.1569588

Hayes, J. A., Lockard, A. J., Janis, R. A., & Locke, B. D. (2016). Construct validity of the Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form among psychotherapy clients. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 29(4), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2016.1138397

Kotera, Y., & Sheffield, D. (2020). Revisiting the Self-compassion Scale-Short Form: Stronger Associations with Self-inadequacy and Resilience. SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine, 2(6), 761–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-020-00309-w

Raes, F. (2011). The Effect of Self-Compassion on the Development of Depression Symptoms in a Non-clinical Sample. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 2, 33–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-011-0040-y

Sutton, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Wu, A. D., & Lawlor, M. S. (2018). Evaluating the Reliability and Validity of the Self-Compassion Scale Short Form Adapted for Children Ages 8–12. Child Indicators Research, 11(4), 1217–1236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9470-y

Preschool Anxiety Scale (PAS)

Dr David Hegarty

The Preschool Anxiety Scale (PAS) is a 28 item scale that is completed by a parent / guardian and which assesses anxiety in children between the ages of 2 ½ and 6 ½ years old. The 28 anxiety items provide an overall measure of anxiety, in addition to scores on five subscales assessing a specific aspect of child anxiety:

  1. Generalised anxiety
  2. Social anxiety
  3. Obsessive compulsive disorder
  4. Physical injury fears
  5. Separation anxiety

Developer

Spence, S. H., Rapee, R., McDonald, C., & Ingram, M. (2001). The structure of anxiety symptoms among preschoolers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39(11), 1293–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7967(00)00098-x

References

Spence, S. H. (1997). The structure of anxiety symptoms among children: A confirmatory factor analytic study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 280297. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843x.106.2.280 

Spence, S. H. (1998). A measure of anxiety symptoms among children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 545566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00034-5

Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-10)

Dr David Hegarty

The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-10) is a brief 10-item version of the full version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-42). The DASS-10 can determine the overall level of distress as well as provides subscale scores for two symptom clusters: Depression and Anxiety/Stress

Developer

Halford, W. K., & Frost, A. D. J. (2021). Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-10: A Brief Measure for Routine Psychotherapy Outcome and Progress Assessment. Behaviour Change: Journal of the Australian Behaviour Modification Association, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2021.12

References

Lovibond S.H. & Lovibond P.F.(1995). Manual for the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale. Sydney: Psychology Foundation, University of New South Wales.

Supervisory Styles Inventory (SSI)

Dr David Hegarty

The Supervisory Styles Inventory (SSI) is a 25 item scale which measures the interpersonal or relational aspects of supervisors as perceived by supervisees. The SSI is completed by a supervisee to rate their perceptions of their supervisor’s style based on three subscales: Attractive, Interpersonally Sensitive, and Task-Oriented. This scale can be useful to start a discussion around the preferences a supervisee has for their supervision. 

Developer

Friedlander, M., & Ward, L. (1984). Development and validation of the Supervisory Styles Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.31.4.541

References

Bussey, L. E. (2015). The Supervisory Relationship: How Style and Working Alliance Relate to Satisfaction among Cyber and Face-to-Face Supervisees.  PhD thesis, University of Tennessee, 2015. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3564 

Fernando, D. M., & Hulse‐Killacky, D. (2005). The relationship of supervisory styles to satisfaction with supervision and the perceived self‐efficacy of master’s‐level counseling students. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44, 293-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2005.tb01757.x

Herbert, J. T., & Ward, T. J. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the supervisory style inventory and the revised supervision questionnaire. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 38, 334-339.

Nelson, M., & Friedlander, M. L. (2001). A close look at conflictual supervisory relationships: The trainees’s perspective.Journal of Counseling Psychology,48, 384-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.4.384 

Newgent, R. A., Davis, H., & Farley, R. C. (2004). Perceptions of individual, triadic, and group models of supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 23, 65-79. doi: 10.1300/J001v23n02_05

Rarick, S. L., & Ladany, N. (2012). The relationship of supervisor and trainee gender match and gender attitude match to supervisory style and the supervisory working alliance. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 13,138-144. doi: 10.1080/14733145.2012.732592