Repurposing process measures to train psychotherapists: Training outcomes using a new approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims : First, this paper presents the rationale for a novel approach to training counsellors in which measures for psychotherapy process research are taught to students before moving on to teaching basic empathic reflections and interventions. The rationale for this is that client process measures can be re‐purposed to help orient and sensitise trainees to key in‐session moments. Second, we present a training outcome study that assesses the effectiveness of this approach. Method : Using an experiential‐integrative therapy approach, a 13‐week training program was used to teach psychotherapy skills and process research measures to22 clinical graduate students taken from two cohorts. As part of the course, trainees conducted several single sessions with volunteer clients on four separate occasions. Training outcomes were measured using both trainee and client reports. Results : Compared to baseline, therapists reported significant and steady gains (all p 's<.05) in session management, reducing their anxious self‐awareness, and in improved sense of self‐efficacy, with the latter having the largest effect (partial Eta Sq.=.381). Discussion : While the findings provide some support for a new training strategy, a dismantling design is needed next to more closely examine the process‐measure approach to training.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it