Experiential congruence: Qualitative analysis of client and counsellor narrative accounts of significant events in time‐limited person‐centred therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of congruence represents a core theoretical construct in the development of client‐centred therapy, and remains fundamental to the practice of experiential approaches to psychotherapy. This study explores the ways in which congruence is experienced during significant moments of therapy. Client and counsellor accounts of moments of congruence/incongruence were collected from six cases of person‐centred counselling, and were analysed using a method of narrative analysis. It was found that participants experienced congruence in a variety of ways, suggesting that the construct does not describe a unitary phenomenon. Congruence was experienced as simultaneously intrapsychic and relational. The effective negotiation of episodes of incongruence comprised a necessary element of effective therapy. Further research into the nature of congruence may be valuable in contributing to new understandings of how therapeutic alliances are made, broken and repaired.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".