Record-informing and note-taking: A continuation of the debate about their impact on client perceptions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article was written as a continuation of the debate between Mills (2012) and Bemister and Dobson (2011, 2012) on record-keeping practices, specifically informing clients of their right to access their records and taking notes during sessions. Prior research has found that clients react positively to being shown their records, but no studies have examined the impact of informing clients of their right to access their records. Research on note-taking has been mixed, showing either a negative impact or no impact. This study investigated how perceptions of a therapist are altered by the following: (a) note-taking during a session, (b) informing clients of their rights to access their records, and (c) the combination of note-taking and record-informing. A total of 110 undergraduate students watched 1 of 4 videos designed to credibly simulate a clinical intake session, and then rated the therapist's competency and professionalism. No differences were found on perceptions of competence or professionalism scores across the groups, suggesting that informing clients of their right to access their records and note-taking during sessions do not have a significant influence of perceptions of a therapist. The clinical implications of these findings are discussed.Keywords: record keeping, note-taking, client files, record-informingResumeCet article a ete ecrit pour faire suite au debat entre Mills (2012) et Bemister et Dobson (2011, 2012) au sujet des pratiques relatives a la tenue de dossiers, en particulier celle d'informer les clients de leur droit de consulter leur dossier et de prendre des notes pendant les rencontres. Les recherches anterieures ont montre que les clients reagissent positivement a la lecture de leur dossier, mais aucune n'a examine les repercussions d'informer les gens de leur droit d'acces a ces dossiers. Les resultats des recherches sur la prise de notes sont mitiges, certains revelant un effet negatif, d'autres, aucun effet. La presente etude s'est penchee sur la facon dont les perceptions qu'on se fait d'un therapeute sont influencees par les elements suivants : a) la prise de notes pendant une rencontre; b) le fait d'informer les clients de leur droit d'acces a leur dossier; c) la combinaison de la prise de notes et de l'information sur le dossier. Cent dix etudiants inscrits a un programme de premier cycle ont regarde un de quatre videos illustrant de facon credible une seance clinique, puis ils ont evalue la competence et le professionnalisme du therapeute. Aucune difference n'a ete trouvee quant aux scores attribues a la perception de la competence ou du professionnalisme parmi les groupes, ce qui suggere que le fait d'informer les clients de leur droit d'acces a leur dossier et la prise de notes durant les rencontres n'ont pas une influence notable sur les perceptions qu'on se fait d'un therapeute. Les repercussions cliniques de ces resultats font l'objet d'une analyse.Mots-cles : tenue de dossiers, prise de notes, dossier des clients, informer du droit a la consultation des dossiers.A topic of recent debate in the field of psychology concerns how therapist behaviors, such as informing clients of their right to access their records and taking notes during session, may impact the client's perceptions of the therapist. Bemister and Dobson (2011) published an article on the ethical and legal considerations of record keeping, which unintentionally elicited this debate. The authors made several recommendations consistent with the current legislation and ethical guidelines (Canadian Psychological Association, 2000), including the suggestion that psychologists should inform clients of their legal right to access their records as a demonstration of general respect. A commentary on their article disagreed with the recommendation and argued that following this recommendation would tarnish the reputation of psychologists (Mills, 2012), because it could engender distrust, damage the therapeutic alliance, and potentially end treatment (pp. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".