Between‐therapist and within‐therapist differences in the quality of the therapeutic relationship: effects on maladjustment and self‐critical perfectionism
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 relationship between therapeutic outcome and a patient-reported measure of the Rogerian conditions of positive regard, empathy, and genuineness was decomposed into between-therapist effects and within-therapist effects using multilevel modeling. Data were available for 157 depressed outpatients treated by 27 therapists in the cognitive-behavioral therapy, interpersonal therapy, or placebo with clinical management conditions of the Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program (Elkin, 1994). Consistent with prior findings of significant between-therapist variability in outcome (e.g., Baldwin, Wampold, & Imel, 2007), patients whose therapists provided high average levels of the perceived Rogerian conditions across the patients in their caseloads experienced more rapid reductions in both overall maladjustment and depressive vulnerability (self-critical perfectionism). Within each therapist's caseload, differences between patients in perceived Rogerian conditions had weaker effects. The results underline the importance of differences between therapists as determinants of outcome in the treatment of depression.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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