Psychodynamic/interpersonal group psychotherapy for perfectionism: Evaluating the effectiveness of a short-term treatment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to determine whether clinically significant improvement could be obtained using a psychodynamic/interpersonal group treatment based on a comprehensive conceptualization of perfectionism. A sample of 71 community-recruited perfectionistic individuals participated in the University of British Columbia Perfectionism Treatment Study. Eighteen of these participants were initially nonrandomly assigned to a waitlist control condition. All participants completed measures of perfectionism traits, perfectionistic self-presentation, and automatic perfectionistic thoughts, as well as measures of distress including depression, anxiety, and interpersonal problems at pretreatment, posttreatment, and at a 4-month follow-up. Multilevel modeling demonstrated that perfectionism levels decreased with large effect sizes and that these decreases were associated with reductions in distress measures. Clinically significant decreases were found in all perfectionism components, and posttreatment scores on most variables were significantly lower in the treatment condition versus the waitlist control condition. The findings suggest that psychodynamic/interpersonal group treatment is effective in treating components of perfectionism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".