Interpersonal processes in psychodynamic-interpersonal and cognitive behavioral group therapy: A systematic case study of two groups.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This mixed method systematic case study applied an interpersonal stage model of the therapeutic process to examine interpersonal processes among a highly adherent Group Psychodynamic-Interpersonal Psychotherapy (GPIP) therapist and a highly adherent Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (GCBT) therapist and their groups of binge eating disordered (BED) patients. This is the first case study to apply the interpersonal stage model of psychotherapy to compare GCBT and GPIP methods and the first to apply the model to group therapy. Early-, middle-, and late-stage transcribed video recordings of sequential interactions among therapists and patients in each of these two time-limited group therapies were analyzed with the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB). We also provide qualitative presentations of the transcripts from each stage as context for the quantitative analyses. BED patients in both groups achieved positive outcomes for binge eating and depression. Consistent with their treatment model, the GPIP therapist was more autonomy-giving, whereas the GCBT therapist was more controlling/directive. The GPIP therapist and her group had high levels of interpersonal complementary interaction sequences in the early stage followed by lower complementarity in the middle stage. The GCBT therapist and her group showed a high-low-high pattern of complementarity across the three stage of therapy. However, overall the GPIP group had higher levels complementarity than the GCBT group. This mixed method case study of group processes based on an interpersonal stage model of psychotherapy suggested specific therapist behaviors in each modality to maximize positive therapeutic interactions at each stage of group 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 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 | 0.039 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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 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".