Therapeutic Factors in Group Counselling Promotes Self Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study is aimed at identifying therapeutic factors in group counselling that encourage the development of self. A total of five counselling students voluntarily participated in this study. The participants had been involved in at least ten sessions of group counselling, which is also part of the learning activities, prior to this research. Data were gathered through interview and diary writing. During this semi- structured interview, the researchers provided questions as a guide before starting the interview. However, the interview was not based solely on the provided questions. Participants were also asked to keep a diary designed to help them express their thoughts, experiences or any other matter related to group counselling experiences. All research participants engaged in three interviews and three journal entries during the data gathering period. Writing a diary entry was done after each interview was held. The data gathering period, interviews and diary writing, occurred over a period of eight weeks. The results showed that unconditional acceptance and compliance with confidentiality by the group leader and the group members were the main therapeutic factors that contributed to the self-development of members. Other therapeutic factors that had an effect were the leadership style, counselling skills and knowledge of the group leader, as well as the commitment of the group members. The presence of therapeutic factors promoted the development of self-confidence, insight, relief and feelings of appreciation among group members. The implication of this unconditional acceptance and confidentiality must be understood, and can thus be practiced by counsellors or group leaders, to create an opportunity for group members to model those behaviours.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".