“You were always on my mind”: Therapists’ intersession experiences in relation to their therapeutic practice, professional characteristics, and quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The experience of "being held in the mind of another" is a powerful metaphor for any relationship and is particularly pertinent to the therapist-patient bond. This study explores the frequency of therapists' thoughts and feelings about their patients between sessions (intersession experiences) and the relation of these to therapists' professional and demographic characteristics, difficulties experienced and coping strategies used in practice, and personal quality of life. Therapists (N=1,040) from the United States, Canada, and New Zealand completed the Therapist Intersession Experience Scale included in a survey with the Development of Psychotherapists Common Core Questionnaire (Orlinsky & Rønnestad, 2005). Controlling for nationality, analyses showed that frequency of intersession experiences was associated most strongly with therapists' general level of difficulties in practice (10.3% of variance), use of constructive coping strategies (3.4%), and a few professional characteristics (3.9% combined). Implications of these findings for clinical theory and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".