Long-term effects of analysis of the patient–therapist relationship in the context of patients’ personality pathology and therapists’ parental feelings.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Analysis of the patient-therapist relationship (relationship work) is considered a core active ingredient in dynamic psychotherapy. However, there are contradictory findings as for whom and under what circumstances these interventions are beneficial. This study investigates long-term effects of relationship work in the context of patients' level of personality pathology and therapists' self-reported parental feelings. METHOD: One hundred outpatients seeking psychotherapy for depression, anxiety, and personality disorders were randomly assigned to weekly dynamic psychotherapy, either with or without relationship work, for 1 year. Personality pathology was evaluated before treatment as the sum of fulfilled personality disorder criteria items on the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Personality Disorders. Therapist feelings were assessed using the Feeling Word Checklist-58. The outcome variables were the Psychodynamic Functioning Scales and Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, measured at pretreatment, midtreatment, posttreatment, 1 year, and 3 years after treatment termination. RESULTS: A significant interaction of treatment group (relationship work vs. no relationship work) by personality pathology by parental therapist feelings was present, indicating that parental feelings were differentially associated with long-term effects of relationship work, depending on the level of personality pathology. In the context of low parental feelings, relationship work was positive for all patients. However, when parental feelings were stronger, the specific effects of such interventions were even more positive for patients with high levels of personality pathology, but negative for patients with low levels of personality pathology. CONCLUSION: The interaction of parental therapist feelings and patients' personality pathology was strongly associated with the long-term specific effects of analysis of the patient-therapist relationship.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".