Focusing on Therapists in Co-Research Interviews: How Do Therapists See Couple Therapy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at a collaborative evaluation of therapeutic processes, through interviews in which both therapists and clients were present. The co-research interviews (Andersen, 1997) were conducted with 28 therapists and their clients after termination of dialogically-focused couple therapy in the context of psychiatric outpatient care. The clients, who had been diagnosed as depressed, attended the interviews together with their spouses. Grounded Theory methodology was used. This paper presents (1) the questions that the therapists wished the interviewer to ask the clients, (2) the therapists' ideas of what the clients might have appreciated in their way of working, (3) difficult moments for the therapists during therapy, and (4) what the therapists thought they had learned from their clients. In addition, a case example is presented. It was found that the therapists oriented themselves to couple therapy for depression in a collaborative way, and that they emphasized the importance of the initial stages of the therapy. Co-research practices can help therapists to learn from their clients and to evaluate therapeutic processes collaboratively.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".