Therapy was not what I expected: A preliminary qualitative analysis of concordance between client expectations and experience of cognitive–behavioural therapy
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
Expectancy violations have generally been neglected in psychotherapy research but may have important implications for therapy process and outcome. A qualitative approach was used to examine discrepancies between actual experience and expectations in client posttreatment accounts of cognitive-behavioural therapy. Nine good- and nine poor-outcome cases were included. Good-outcome clients frequently reported disconfirmation of process expectations, including surprise that therapy was collaborative, that they had the freedom to direct therapy, and that they were comfortable and could trust the process. Poor-outcome clients generally failed to report such experiences. Good-outcome clients also reported gaining more from treatment than expected, whereas poor-outcome clients reported being disappointed. These findings suggest an important role for expectancy disconfirmation in 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it