The Client’s Perspective on Forming a Counselling Alliance and Implications for Research on Counsellor Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the client’s perspective on what helps form and strengthen the counselling alliance and aims to provide a preliminary catalogue of concrete client-identified alliance-building factors. Nine participants (four males, five females) cur-rently or previously in counselling were interviewed using the Critical Incident Technique and asked to identify specific events and behaviours deemed most helpful to alliance formation. The nine participants provided 107 critical incidents, which were placed into eight mutually exclusive categories. These findings serve to inform the direction of future research and training aimed at developing counsellors ’ alliance-formation com-petence. La présente étude examine le point de vue du client sur les éléments qui aident à for-mer et à renforcer une alliance de counseling et vise à fournir un catalogue préliminaire de facteurs concrets définis par le client pour la construction de cette alliance. Neuf participants (quatre hommes, cinq femmes) qui sont ou ont été en counseling ont été interviewés en utilisant la technique de l’incident critique. On leur a demandé d’esti-mer avec précision quels sont les événements et comportements les plus utiles dans la
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".