Clinical significance and patients' perceived change in four sessions of brief psychodynamic intervention: Characteristics of early responders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated Tingey, Lambert, Burlingame, and Hansen's (1996) extension of Jacobson, Follette and Revenstorf's (1984) proposal for assessing clinical significance. Seventy (N=70) outpatients with/without Cluster C personality disorders treated with a brief psychodynamic intervention (BDI) were included in the study. Results showed that 33% of patients demonstrated clinically significant change on the Global Severity Index. Patients who improved reported more perceived subjective change, greater satisfaction with the treatment, and greater improvement on the Social Adjustment Scale than patients who did not improve (60%) or deteriorated (7%). Further analyses showed that clinical significance achieved in a four session ultra-brief therapy is associated with patient characteristics such as co-morbid personality disorders, level of defensive functioning, and specific interpersonal problems. Results were maintained at 3 month and 6 month follow-ups. Findings are discussed in reference to Howard's suggestions on remoralization and remission.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".