Therapist and client perceptions of therapeutic presence: The development of a measure
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 authors developed two versions of a therapeutic presence measure, based on an earlier model of presence (Geller & Greenberg, 2002)-Therapeutic Presence Inventory-therapist (TPI-T) and client (TPI-C) versions-to measure in-session therapeutic presence. They explored their reliability and validity in two studies. In the first, items generated from the previously established model were subjected to analyses and expert ratings. In the second study, therapists and clients rated therapists' presence postsession. Therapists also completed the Relationship Inventory, and clients assessed two additional factors: session outcome, using the Client Task Specific Measure-Revised, and therapeutic alliance, using the Working Alliance Inventory. Findings revealed that both versions of the TPI had good reliability and construct validity. However, TPI-T had low predictive validity and the TPI-C showed good predictive validity. In particular, clients reported positive therapeutic alliance and change following sessions when they felt their therapist was present with them.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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