Change in biased thinking in a 10-session treatment for borderline personality disorder: Further evidence of the motive-oriented therapeutic relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is characterized by both maladaptive thinking and problematic schemas. Kramer and colleagues (2011) showed that using the motive-oriented therapeutic relationship (MOTR), based on the individualized understanding of the patient according to Plan Analysis (Caspar, 2007), can improve treatment outcomes for BPD. The present process-outcome pilot study aimed to examine the effects of the motive-oriented therapeutic relationship on the cognitive biases of patients with BPD. Change in biased cognitions in N=10 patients who were subject to MOTR was compared to that of N=10 patients who received psychiatric-psychodynamic treatment (Gunderson & Links, 2008). Results show a greater decrease in over-generalizations in patients who received MOTR, compared to the patients who received the psychiatric-psychodynamic treatment. These changes were related to outcome in various ways. These findings underline the importance of an individualized case formulation method in bringing about therapeutic change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".