MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1877145481 · doi:10.1002/cpp.1953

Redefining Outcome Measurement: A Model for Brief Psychotherapy

2015· review· en· W1877145481 on OpenAlexaff
Everett McGuinty, J. Craig Nelson, Alain Carlson, Eric Crowther, Dina Bednar, Mirisse Foroughe

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychology & Psychotherapy · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsKindercare PediatricsHospital for Sick ChildrenChild, Adolescent and Family Mental HealthWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySession (web analytics)PsychotherapistTask (project management)Outcome (game theory)NarrativeCognitive psychologyProcess (computing)Clinical psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The zeitgeist for short-term psychotherapy efficacy has fundamentally shifted away from evidence-based practices to include evidence-informed practices, resulting in an equally important paradigm shift in outcome measurement designed to reflect change in this short-term modality. OBJECTIVE: The present article delineates a short-term psychotherapy structure which defines four fundamental stages that all brief therapies may have in common, and are represented through Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Solution-Focused Brief Therapy, Narrative Therapy, and Emotion-Focused Therapy. METHOD: These four theoretical approaches were analyzed via a selected literature review through comparing and contrasting specific and common tasks as they relate to the process of psychotherapy and change. Once commonalities were identified within session, they were categorized or grouped into themes or general stages of change within the parameters of a four to six session model of short-term therapy. Commonalities in therapeutic stages of change may more accurately and uniformly measure outcome in short-term work, unlike the symptom-specific psychometric instruments of longer-term psychotherapy. RESULTS: A systematic framework for evaluating the client and clinician adherence to 20 specific tasks for these four short-term therapies is presented through the newly proposed, Brief Task Acquisition Scale (BTAS). It is further proposed that the client-clinicians' adherence to these tasks will track and ultimately increase treatment integrity. CONCLUSION: Thus, when the client-clinician relationship tracks and evaluates the three pillars of (1) stage/process change, (2) task acquisition, and (3) treatment integrity, the culmination of these efforts presents a new way of more sensitively measuring outcome in short-term psychotherapy. Data collection is suggested as a first step to empirically evaluate the testable hypotheses suggested within this current model. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Message The clinician practitioner will note that the proposed Brief Services model removes the subjectivity of client satisfaction as a reliable outcome measure, and relies upon client and therapist adherence to specific tasks and stages of change within and across short-term psychotherapy. The clinical significance of the BTAS for the practitioner is three fold. The psychometric instrument (1) tracks stage or process change, (2) guides task acquisition, and (3) incorporates greater treatment integrity unlike other outcome measures. The BTAS present a new way of conceptualizing change in short-term psychotherapy regardless of modality or presenting issue, making it a more flexible and usable instrument for the clinician. The BTAS may measure outcome more sensitively and accurately, thus offering the client, therapist and client-therapist more information regarding change at each stage and at the end of short-term psychotherapy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.148
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.142
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1480.142
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.033
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.682
GPT teacher head0.623
Teacher spread0.059 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Psychology & PsychotherapySame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207