Cohesion and Outcome in Short-Term Psychodynamic Groups for Complicated Grief
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used two measures of cohesion for the process analysis of 12 short-term, time-limited groups for complicated grief. The measures had similar theoretical definitions but differed in terms of rater source (member vs. observer), measurement score (mean of items vs. global rating), and rating unit (individual vs. group). We examined the relationship between the measures, assessed the development of cohesion over the life of the group, and evaluated each measure's relationship to outcome. A principal components analysis with each measure yielded one cohesion component, which supported a unidimensional model; however, the two cohesion components were independent of each other, which supported a multidimensional model. Repeated measures analyses indicated that observer-rated cohesion developed in a quadratic manner (v pattern) across sessions, while member-rated cohesion developed in a linear manner. The object focus (the group, other members, the therapist) of the members' ratings determined whether cohesion increased or decreased across sessions. No significant relationships between cohesion and outcome were identified. Implications of the findings for the understanding of group cohesion are considered.
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 | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".