Predicting resistance management skill from psychotherapy experience, intellectual humility and emotion regulation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective Resistance management in psychotherapy remains a foundational skill that is associated with positive client outcomes (Westra, H. A., & Norouzian, N. (2018). Using motivational interviewing to manage process markers of ambivalence and resistance in cognitive behavioral therapy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 42(2), 193–203). However, little is known about which therapist characteristics contribute to successful management of resistance. Research has suggested that psychotherapy performance does not improve with experience (Goldberg, S. B., Rousmaniere, T., Miller, S. D., Whipple, J., Nielsen, S. L., Hoyt, W. T., & Wampold, B. E. (2016). Do psychotherapists improve with time and experience? A longitudinal analysis of outcomes in a clinical setting. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(1), 1–11), that psychotherapists lack humility (Macdonald, J., & Mellor-Clark, J. (2015). Correcting psychotherapists’ blindsidedness: Formal feedback as a means of overcoming the natural limitations of therapists. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 22(3), 249–257), and that difficult therapeutic moments may dysregulate therapist emotions (Muran, J. C., & Eubanks, C. F. (2020). Therapist performance under pressure: Negotiating emotion, difference, and rupture. American Psychological Association). This study aimed to 1) identify whether psychotherapy experience (i.e., training versus no training and number of years of psychotherapy experience) was associated with resistance management skill, and 2) identify whether humility and difficulties regulating emotions among trained individuals were each associated with resistance management.Method: A sample of 76 trained and 98 untrained participants were recruited for the present study. All participants completed the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale (CIHS, Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., & Rouse, S. V. (2016). The development and validation of the comprehensive intellectual humility scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(2), 209–221), the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41–54), and the Resistance Vignette Task (RVT; Westra, H. A., Nourazian, N., Poulin, L., Hara, K., Coyne, A., Constantino, M. J., Olson, D., & Antony, M. M. (2021). Testing a deliberate practice workshop for developing appropriate responsivity to resistance markers: A randomized clinical trial. Psychotherapy, 58, 175–185 ) which was used to assess resistance management skill.Results: Trained individuals performed significantly better on resistance management than untrained individuals; however, years of experience within the trained sample were not associated with resistance management. Conversely, lower humility and greater difficulties regulating emotions were each associated with significantly poorer resistance management in trained individuals.Conclusion: These findings suggest the possibility of improving training to focus on key skills, like resistance management, through supporting humility and emotion regulation in training, as opposed to simply acquiring more experience.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».