Patient interpersonal impacts and the early therapeutic alliance in interpersonal therapy for depression.
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
The therapeutic alliance consistently predicts positive psychotherapy outcomes. Thus, it is important to uncover factors that relate to alliance development. The goal of this study was to examine the association between patient interpersonal characteristics and alliance quality in interpersonal therapy for depression. Data derive from a subsample (n = 74) of a larger naturalistic database of outpatients treated at a mood disorders clinic of a university-affiliated psychiatric hospital. Following Session 3 of treatment, therapists completed the Impact Message Inventory (Kiesler & Schmidt, 1993) to assess patients' interpersonal impacts on them. Also following Session 3, patients completed the Working Alliance Inventory (Horvath & Greenberg, 1989) to assess alliance quality. As predicted, patients' affiliative interpersonal impacts, as perceived by their therapists, were positively associated with alliance quality, controlling for baseline depression severity. Although unrelated to the initial hypotheses, patients concurrently taking psychotropic medications reported better alliances than patients receiving psychotherapy only.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it