Therapist differences in cognitive–behavioral psychotherapy for generalized anxiety disorder: A pilot study.
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
Little is known about factors differentiating more and less effective therapists or the mechanisms through which therapists influence outcome. In the present study, the performance of a small sample of 4 therapists was compared in the context of delivering cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy (CBT) to 32 clients with generalized anxiety disorder. More effective therapists were characterized by higher observer-rated CBT competence, higher client outcome expectations and client treatment credibility assessments, and higher early treatment client ratings of therapeutic alliance quality. Higher early CBT competence was associated with higher client midtreatment outcome expectations, which in turn were associated with better posttreatment outcomes. Although these findings are preliminary given the small sample of therapists and clients, they suggest that the common factor of outcome expectations might be a mechanism through which the specific factor of psychotherapist competence exerts its influence on treatment outcome. The implications of these findings and directions for future research 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.008 | 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 it