MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027829857 · doi:10.1080/10503307.2011.610832

The impact of motivational interviewing on resistance in cognitive behavioural therapy for generalized anxiety disorder

2011· article· en· W2027829857 on OpenAlexafffund
Adi Aviram, Henny A. Westra

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMotivational interviewingWorryPsychologyAnxietyClinical psychologyResistance (ecology)PsychotherapistCognitive behavioral therapyGeneralized anxiety disorderCognitionCompliance (psychology)PsychiatryIntervention (counseling)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study simultaneously examined observed resistance and homework compliance in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) between those with severe generalized anxiety disorder who did (n =18) and did not (n =17) receive Motivational Interviewing (MI) prior to CBT. Large effects for reduced resistance early in CBT were observed in the MI pretreatment group relative to the no-pretreatment group. Moreover, receiving four sessions of MI was associated with significantly lower levels of resistance, compared to receiving four sessions of CBTalone. Using path analysis, resistance, but not homework compliance, was found to strongly and directly mediate the relationship between treatment group and worry reduction. Findings suggest that MI improves treatment outcomes when added to CBT for generalized anxiety by reducing client resistance to, and increasing client engagement with treatment.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.236
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations108
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychotherapy ResearchSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207