The Relationship Between Agreeableness and the Development of the Working Alliance in Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The working alliance between therapist and patient is an important component of effective interventions for borderline personality disorder (BPD). The current study examines whether client personality affects the development of the working alliance during the treatment of BPD, and whether this influences treatment effectiveness. Data was based on 87 patients with BPD who were participants in a randomized controlled trial comparing Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) and general psychiatric management. Higher levels of trait Agreeableness were associated with steeper increases in working alliance throughout treatment, but only in the DBT condition. Increases in working alliance were in turn associated with better clinical outcomes. Mediation models revealed a significant indirect path from Agreeableness to better clinical outcomes, mediated through larger improvements in working alliance over time. These results highlight the role that patient personality can play during the therapeutic process, with a specific focus on the importance of Agreeableness for alliance development.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it