The development of therapeutic collaboration in a good outcome case of person-centered therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the development of therapeutic collaboration in Person-Centered Therapy (PCT). It presents a good outcome case – “Mary” – selected from York I Depression Study, treated with PCT. The study examined how therapist and client worked together throughout the therapy, using the Therapeutic Collaboration Coding System (TCCS). The TCCS assumes that effective therapeutic collaboration occurs within the client’s therapeutic zone of proximal development (TZPD), defined as the distance between the actual and the potential client’s developmental level. It consists of a transcript-based method by which therapist’s interventions and client’s responses are analyzed on a moment-to moment basis. Two independent trained judges coded 15 sessions of this case, using the TCCS. Results showed that the therapeutic dyad worked most of the time within the client’s TZPD, thus suggesting a collaborative pattern throughout the therapy process. In addition, the results showed that the client proactively interacted with the therapist, moving forward in her TZPD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".