Two aspects of the therapeutic alliance: Differential relations with depressive symptom change.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The therapeutic alliance has been linked to symptom change in numerous investigations. Although the alliance is commonly conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, few studies have examined its components separately. The current study explored which components of the alliance are most highly associated with depressive symptom change in cognitive therapy (CT). METHOD: Data were drawn from 2 published randomized, controlled clinical trials of CT for major depressive disorder (n = 105, mean age = 40 years, female = 62%, White = 82%). We examined the relations of 2 factor-analytically derived components of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI; Horvath & Greenberg, 1986, 1989) with symptom change on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) that occurred either prior to or subsequent to the examined sessions. WAI ratings were obtained at an early and a late session for each therapist-patient dyad. RESULTS: Variation in symptom change subsequent to the early session was significantly related to the WAI factor that assesses therapist-patient agreement on the goals and tasks of therapy but not to a factor assessing the affective bond between therapist and patient. In contrast, both factors, when assessed in a late session, were significantly predicted by prior symptom change. CONCLUSIONS: These findings may reflect the importance, in CT, of therapist-patient agreement on the goals and tasks of therapy. In contrast, the bond between therapist and patient may be more of a consequence than a cause of symptom change in CT. The implications of these results and directions for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".