Between-Session Change in Solution-Focused Therapy: A Replication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a replication of the Reuterlov, Lofgren, Nordstrom, Ternstrom, and Miller study (2000) on the stability of clients' descriptions of improvement during solution-focused therapy. Our replication confirmed that the great majority of clients who report improvements at the outset of a session tend to increase their answer to the scaling question at the end of the interview. We also confirmed Reuterlov et al.'s fnding that when clients begin the session without reporting improvements, they tend to not see improvements at the end of it, in spite of their therapists' best efforts to “deconstruct” their initial description. However, our findings are less clear-cut than those of the Swedish team, and suggest that in some occasions (37.5% in our study, as opposed to 13% in the original paper) deconstruction may pay off as a therapeutic strategy, helping clients who initially do not describe any improvements to see some at the end of the session. Therefore, we consider it premature to dismiss deconstruction as a useless therapeutic strategy, and suggest that more studies be done on the conditions under which it is most helpful.
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 | 0.089 | 0.251 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".