Clients' collaboration in therapy: Self-perceptions and relationships with client psychological functioning, interpersonal relations, and motivation.
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
To gain a closer understanding of client collaboration and its determinants, the first goal of this study involved the investigation of clients' perceptions of collaboration using a discovery-oriented methodology. Content analysis of 30 clients' written descriptions revealed three different modes of client collaboration, labeled active, mutual, and therapist-dependent, which emphasized client initiative and active participation, joint participation, and reliance on therapists' contributions to the work and change process, respectively. The majority of clients valued the therapist's active involvement and also emphasized the helpfulness of their collaborative experiences. In general, the therapist actions and attitudes involved in clients' views of good collaboration varied among clients. A second goal was to examine the relationships between client psychological functioning, quality of interpersonal relationships, and motivation, and clients' collaborative contributions, as rated by clients and therapists. Of these, only motivation was significantly associated with client collaboration, particularly in the perceptions of therapists. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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