Quality of Object Relations as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Pattern of Alliance and Outcome in Short-Term Individual Psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the personality variable quality of object relations (QOR) as a moderator of the relationship between the pattern of the therapeutic alliance and treatment outcome in two forms (interpretive, supportive) of short-term individual psychotherapy. In a sample of 72 psychiatric outpatients who completed interpretive therapy, QOR emerged as a moderator for the outcome factor general symptomatology and dysfunction. For high-QOR patients, an increasing level of alliance was directly related to benefit, whereas for low-QOR patients, a decreasing level of alliance was directly related to benefit. An explanation for these findings emphasized the importance of patients repeating their typical pattern of maladaptive interpersonal behavior in the therapy sessions in the context of the therapist working with the transference. In a sample of 72 psychiatric outpatients who completed supportive therapy, QOR did not emerge as a moderator. These findings in combination with evidence from previous studies suggest that QOR should be investigated as a moderator variable in future studies 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".