Relationships among psychological mindedness, alexithymia and outcome in four forms of short‐term psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the relative strength of two patient characteristics, psychological mindedness (PM) and alexithymia, as predictors of psychotherapy outcome. Data were provided by two comparative trials of interpretive versus supportive therapy. One involved short-term group therapy for 107 outpatients with complicated grief. The other involved short-term individual therapy for 144 outpatients of mixed diagnoses. Prior to beginning therapy, patients were assessed for PM using the Psychological Mindedness Assessment Procedure and for alexithymia using the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. For both trials, the association between PM and alexithymia was small and non-significant. The therapy approach (interpretive vs. supportive) did not differentially affect the relationship between either predictor variable and outcome. There were significant direct relationships between PM and favourable outcome, and between alexithymia and favourable outcome in both trials. There was an additive relationship between PM and alexithymia in predicting outcome. Implications of these results 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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".