Patient affect experiencing following therapist interventions in short-term dynamic psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research was to examine the relationship between therapist interventions and patient affect responses in Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy (STDP). The Affect Experiencing subscale from the Achievement of Therapeutic Objectives Scale (ATOS) was adapted to measure individual immediate affect experiencing (I-AES) responses in relation to therapist interventions coded within the preceding speaking turn, using the Psychotherapy Interaction Coding (PIC) system. A hierarchical linear modelling procedure was used to assess the change in affect experiencing and the relationship between affect experiencing and therapist interventions within and across segments of therapy. Process data was taken from six STDP cases; in total 24 hours of video-taped sessions were examined. Therapist interventions were found to account for a statistically significant amount of variance in immediate affect experiencing. Higher levels of immediate affect experiencing followed the therapist's use of Confrontation, Clarification and Support compared to Questions, Self-disclosure and Information interventions. Therapist Confrontation interventions that attempted to direct pressure towards either the visceral experience of affect or a patient's defences against feelings led to the highest levels of immediate affect experiencing. The type of therapist intervention accounts for a small but significant amount of the variation observed in a patient's immediate emotional arousal. Empirical findings support clinical theory in STDP that suggests strategic verbal responses promote the achievement of this specific therapeutic objective.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".