Are all narratives the same: Convergent and discriminant validity of the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale—Global Rating Method across two narrative types

This study examines the construct validity of the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale—Global Rating Method (SCORS-G) by exploring the degree of convergence across different narrative sources (i.e., early memories [EM] and psychotherapy narratives [PT]) using a university-based outpatient sample (n = 101). First, we examined intercorrelations between SCORS-G ratings of EM and PT. Intercorrelations between SCORS-G EM and PT revealed that three of the dimensions significantly correlated with themselves across narrative type (Emotional Investment in Relationships [EIR], Experience and Management of Aggressive Impulses [AGG], and Self-Esteem [SE]), but that only AGG had its strongest correlation with itself (i.e., EM AGG to PT AGG). In addition, EM AGG was significantly related to all but one of the PT SCORS-G dimensions. Likewise, EM SE correlated with all but two of the PT SCORS-G dimensions. Second, we examined how narrative source related to clinical findings. With the use of a multimethod approach, we assessed how SCORS-G ratings from both narrative types correlated with selected variables from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and Rorschach Inkblot Test. Findings indicated that there were only three instances in which both narrative types had significant relationships to the same variable/scale, and all three instances were with the Rorschach. Together, these findings suggest that even when using the same scale (SCORS-G), different narrative sources differentially activate aspects of object relations. In addition, the results highlight that difficulties with self-esteem and poor management of aggression in childhood interactions relates to patients' object relational functioning later in life. Clinical implications and future research are discussed.     

Personal perspectives on patient and public involvement – stories about becoming and being an expert by experience

Patient and public involvement activities bring ‘lay participants’ and their accounts of lived experiences to the centre of health service development and delivery. For individuals, these accounts can provide an important resource, offering a sense of control and an opportunity to re-frame past events. Furthermore, as involvement activities and the use of personal accounts have become more prominent, it is timely to examine the involvement process from the perspective of the ‘lay participants’. Hence, the aim of this study is to explore how people become involved and how they construct the accounts of their lived experience. We analyse the stories of people with lived mental illness or caring experiences, who have become experts by experience (n = 13). We argue that becoming an expert by experience can help to re-contextualise past experiences and support the re-discovery of skills and expertise, leading experts by experience to construct both professionalised and politicised identities. The process has the potential to enforce narratives that portray illness experiences as motivators for social action and change. Additionally, we claim that the stories experts by experience share with health services and the public are not ‘lay accounts’ or ad hoc tales, but accounts constructed to serve specific purposes.