Empathic relational bonds and personal agency in psychotherapy: Implications for psychotherapy supervision, practice, and research.
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
Although psychotherapy researchers have become increasingly interested in identifying common factors that contribute to effective therapeutic practices, across psycho-diagnostic categories and treatment approaches, relatively little attention to date has been focused on the impact of these research findings for psychotherapy supervision and training programs. To address this gap, in this article we describe key components of an integrative psychotherapy supervision and training program that focuses on the development of a strong therapeutic alliance as an empirically supported, common principle of change in psychotherapy. We review empirical research evidence that addresses the contributions of therapist empathic engagement for the development of secure, relational bonds, heightened client agency, and the development of strong therapeutic alliances, and we discuss the implications of these findings for therapy practice and supervision training. We conclude with specific recommendations for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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