Relation of therapeutic alliance and perfectionism to outcome in brief outpatient treatment of depression.
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
Prior analyses of the National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program demonstrated that perfectionism was negatively related to outcome, whereas both the patient's perception of the quality of the therapeutic relationship and the patient contribution to the therapeutic alliance were positively related to outcome across treatment conditions (S. J. Blatt, D. C. Zuroff, D. M. Quinlan, & P. A. Pilkonis, 1996; J. L. Krupnick et al., 1996). New analyses examining the relations among perfectionism, perceived relationship quality, and the therapeutic alliance demonstrated that (a) the patient contribution to the alliance and the perceived quality of the therapeutic relationship were independent predictors of outcome, (b) perfectionistic patients showed smaller increases in the Patient Alliance factor over the course of treatment, and (c) the negative relation between perfectionism and outcome was explained (mediated) by perfectionistic patients' failure to develop stronger therapeutic alliances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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