Use of the Social Relations Model by Group Therapists: Application and Commentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents research findings concerning the relationship of patient positive regard to the outcome of time-limited, short-term group therapy for psychiatric outpatients with complicated grief. The Social Relations Model (SOREMO) of David Kenny was used to investigate this relationship. While the patient's ratings of positive regard of others in the group, known as the Perceiver Effect, accounted for the most variation of the patients' ratings, the other patients' rating of the patient's positive regard, known as the Target Effect, was directly related to favorable change. In addition, a simpler method was used to calculate variables that were analogous to the Perceiver Effect and Target Effect variables of the SOREMO. These variables yielded similar outcome findings. Because of limitations and difficulties associated with learning and using the SOREMO, the simpler method represents a more feasible choice for group therapists who are primarily clinicians or group therapists who wish to collect a small amount of data on an ongoing basis. Even experienced group therapy researchers are likely to find the SOREMO program challenging to use.
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 | 0.044 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".