Interpersonal predictors of outcome following short‐term group therapy for complicated grief: a replication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current study represented a replication of previous research, addressing measures of interpersonal relatedness as predictors of outcome for dynamically oriented, short‐term group (STG) psychotherapy for patients presenting with complicated grief. In an analysis of data from a comparative trial of two forms (interpretive, supportive) of STG therapy (n = 107), Ogrodniczuk, Piper, McCallum, Joyce and Rosie reported that three distinct indices of interpersonal relatedness—quality of object relations, current social functioning and attachment insecurity—each had significant relationships with measures of treatment outcome, with attachment insecurity emerging as the strongest predictor. The current study (n = 110) was based on data from a subsequent trial of the two therapy approaches that examined the effect of group composition on outcome, by Piper, Ogrodniczuk, Joyce, Weideman and Rosie. Predictor variables and outcome factors involved in the current analyses were similar or identical to those employed by Ogrodniczuk et al., and an identical analytic strategy was followed. Only the patient's attachment insecurity emerged as a strong predictor of psychotherapy outcome, providing a replication of the key finding from the previous study. The clinical implications and limitations of the results are discussed. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Message: • Complicated grief (CG) is a distinct syndrome that is associated with definite distress and problems in functioning; there are empirically supported treatments available for CG. • Characteristics of the patient can influence the success of these treatments. • In particular, the patient's capacity for interpersonal relatedness will help determine the quality of engagement in the therapy process and treatment outcome. • Attachment insecurity is an important aspect of interpersonal relatedness and, based on replicated findings reported here, has a clear relationship with benefit from short‐term group therapy for CG.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".