Change in Cognitive Errors and Coping Over the Course of Brief Psychodynamic Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cognitive change over the course of psychodynamic psychotherapy has been postulated by several models, but has rarely been studied. Based on the adaptive skills model (Badgio, Halperin, & Barber, 1999), it is reasonable to expect that very brief dynamic psychotherapy may be associated with change in coping patterns and cognitive errors (also known as cognitive distortions) y. METHOD: N = 50 outpatients presenting with various psychiatric disorders and undergoing 4 sessions of Brief Psychodynamic Intervention (BPI; Despland, Drapeau, & de Roten, 2005; Despland, Michel, & de Roten, 2010) were included in this naturalistic study (mean age: 31 years; 56% female; all Caucasian). Cognitive errors and coping strategies were assessed using the Cognitive Errors Rating Scale (Drapeau et al., 2008) and Coping Patterns Rating Scale (Perry et al., 2005). These observer rated methods were applied to the verbatim transcriptions of all 4 therapy sessions completed by each patient. RESULTS: Results indicate change in both cognitive errors and coping patterns over the course of BPI, including an increase in the Overall Coping Functioning and a decrease in unhelpful coping processes, such as isolation, which reflects a shift in participant appraisal towards stress appraised as a challenge at the end of treatment. These changes predicted symptom change at the end of treatment. While cognitive errors also changed over the course of BPI, no predictive effect was found with regard to symptom change. CONCLUSIONS: These results are interpreted within the framework of common change principles in psychotherapy. Implications and future research 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".