Change in defense mechanisms and coping over the course of short‐term dynamic psychotherapy for adjustment disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short-term dynamic psychotherapy (STDP) has rarely been investigated with regard to its underlying mechanisms of change, even if psychoanalytic theory informs us about several potential putative mechanisms of change in patients. Change in overall defensive functioning is one. In this study, we explored the role of overall defensive functioning, by comparing it on the process level with the neighbouring concept of overall coping functioning. A total of N=32 patients, mainly presenting adjustment disorder, were included in the study. The patients underwent STDP up to 40 sessions; three sessions per psychotherapy were transcribed and analyzed by using two observer-rating scales: Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (Perry, 1990) and Coping Action Patterns (Perry, Drapeau, Dunkley, & Blake, 2005). Hierarchical linear modeling was applied to model the change over the course of therapy and relate it to outcome. Results suggest that STDP has an effect on the target variable of overall defensive functioning, which was absent for overall coping functioning. Links with outcome confirm the importance of the effect. These results are discussed from methodological and clinical viewpoints.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".