Does CBT Facilitate Emotional Processing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is not primarily conceptualized as operating via affective processes. However, there is growing recognition that emotional processing plays an important role during the course of therapy. AIMS: The Emotional Processing Scale was developed as a clinical and research tool to measure emotional processing deficits and the process of emotional change during therapy. METHOD: Fifty-five patients receiving CBT were given measures of emotional functioning (Toronto Alexithymia Scale [TAS-20]; Emotional Processing Scale [EPS-38]) and psychological symptoms (Brief Symptom Inventory [BSI]) pre- and post-therapy. In addition, the EPS-38 was administered to a sample of 173 healthy individuals. RESULTS: Initially, the patient group exhibited elevated emotional processing scores compared to the healthy group, but after therapy, these scores decreased and approached those of the healthy group. CONCLUSIONS: This suggests that therapy ostensibly designed to reduce psychiatric symptoms via cognitive processes may also facilitate emotional processing. The Emotional Processing Scale demonstrated sensitivity to changes in alexithymia and psychiatric symptom severity, and may provide a valid and reliable means of assessing change during 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".