Core conflictual relationship theme – guided psychotherapy: Initial effectiveness study of a 16‐session manualized approach in a sample of six patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effectiveness of a manualized, 16-sessions, core conflictual relationship theme (CCRT)-based treatment. DESIGN: Treatment effects were assessed for statistical and clinical significance in a pre- and post-therapy design. METHODS: Six patients seeking help mostly for interpersonal difficulties received CCRT-based psychotherapy. The therapists were six supervised doctoral students. An average of four assessment sessions and one goal-setting session preceded 16 sessions of psychotherapy consisting mainly of interpretive work focused on one CCRT. Patients completed measures of general and treatment specific outcome indicators at the beginning and the end of therapy. Alliance measures were completed by patients after each session. RESULTS: The alliance was strong and the treatment had high credibility. Parametric and non-parametric tests showed that patients significantly improved on the general measures of self-esteem, symptomatic distress, anxiety, and depression, as well as on the treatment specific measures of interpersonal functioning, use of immature defences, and CCRT-associated subjective discomfort, with large effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results suggest that this manualized, CCRT-based, treatment produces general and approach specific improvements. Replication is needed to ascertain its effectiveness with a larger sample size and within a controlled design.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".