Supervisor variance in psychotherapy outcome in routine practice
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
OBJECTIVE: Although supervision has long been considered as a means for helping trainees develop competencies in their clinical work, little empirical research has been conducted examining the influence of supervision on client treatment outcomes. Specifically, one might ask whether differences in supervisors can predict/explain whether clients will make a positive or negative change through psychotherapy. METHOD: In this naturalistic study, we used a large (6521 clients seen by 175 trainee therapists who were supervised by 23 supervisors) 5-year archival data-set of psychotherapy outcomes from a private nonprofit mental health center to test whether client treatment outcomes (as measured by the OQ-45.2) differed depending on who was providing the supervision. Hierarchical linear modeling was used with clients (Level 1) nested within therapists (Level 2) who were nested within supervisors (Level 3). RESULTS: In the main analysis, supervisors explained less than 1% of the variance in client psychotherapy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Possible reasons for the lack of variability between supervisors are discussed.
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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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