Effects of Solution-Focused Versus Problem-Focused Intake Questions on Pre-treatment Change
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
This research tested the hypothesis that changing the language of intake procedures could be beneficial. Two randomized studies compared solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) intake procedures with traditional intake procedures. In Study 1, clients completed either a standard written intake form with problem-focused questions or an SFBT Short Intake Form. Clients answering the solution-focused questions described significantly more solutions and significantly fewer problems than the comparison group. Study 2 compared an SFBT intake interview with a DSM-based diagnostic intake interview. Clients in the SFBT intake interview improved significantly on the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ) before their first therapy session, whereas those in the diagnostic intake did not. Both studies demonstrated that intake procedures are not neutral information gathering and that strength-based questions have advantages. Using solution-focused language in intake procedures can change the information that clients provide and even lead to pre-treatment change. Both intake procedures are ready for adoption by practitioners.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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