The mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy adherence scale: inter‐rater reliability, adherence to protocol and treatment distinctiveness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The development of the Mindfulness‐Based Cognitive Therapy Adherence Scale (MBCT‐AS) is described. This 17‐item scale measures therapist adherence to the treatment protocol for Mindfulness‐Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), a treatment for the prevention of recurrence in Major Depressive Disorder. The MBCT‐AS assesses therapist behaviours specific to (MBCT) as well as therapy practices that MBCT shares with Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT). To determine the utility of this scale, we compared delivery of group MBCT against group CBT, with independent ratings of taped sessions provided to measure adherence to MBCT and CBT for therapists in both groups. The results showed that: (a) raters can reliably use the MBCT‐AS; (b) MBCT therapists demonstrated adherence to the treatment protocol, as measured by the MBCT‐AS; and (c) MBCT is distinguishable from CBT on both the MBCT‐AS and a scale measuring adherence to CBT (CBT‐AS). These findings indicate that the MBCT‐AS may be a useful tool for ensuring the proper delivery of MBCT in future research, and may be helpful in determining the elements of MBCT that are unique to that treatment. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it