Client personality characteristics predict satisfaction with cognitive behavior therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ratings of treatment satisfaction are a means for cognitive behavior therapy clients to provide their unique personal perspective on their therapy experience. Treatment satisfaction is a variable of growing importance as a predictor of outcome for various medical and psychological treatments including treatments for chronic pain (D. C. Turk et al., 2003). Our goal was to determine whether satisfaction with cognitive behavior therapy sessions varied as a function of patient personality characteristics in a sample of 43 older adults (average age=72.3 years, SD=8.0) participating in a psychosocial pain management therapy program with a cognitive behavioral orientation. Participants completed the NEO Five Factor Inventory (P. T. Costa, Jr. & R. R. McCrae, 1992) prior to the commencement of treatment and a psychometrically valid questionnaire, assessing satisfaction with psychological therapy, after each therapy session. The core personality dimensions of neuroticism, openness, and agreeableness were predictive of aspects of satisfaction with therapy. These findings have the potential of being useful to clinicians concerned with the prediction of response to therapy.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".