Patient Sex as Moderator of Effects of Transference Interpretation in a Randomized Controlled Study of Dynamic Psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether men and women respond differentially to brief dynamic psychotherapy, with or without transference interpretations. METHOD: Data from the First Experimental Study of Transference Interpretation were used. Patients (n = 100) were randomized to receive 2 different dynamic psychotherapies during 1 year, with either a moderate level of transference interpretations or no transference interpretations. We used the following outcome measures: the Psychodynamic Functioning Scales, Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Circumplex Version, Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), and total mean score of Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (Global Severity Index [GSI]). Change was assessed using linear-mixed models. RESULTS: On average, men and women responded equally across treatments. The moderator analyses, using the 2 secondary outcome measures, GAF and GSI, demonstrated that women responded better to therapy with transference interpretations, compared with men, whereas men responded better to therapy without transference interpretations, compared with women. When the moderator sex was combined with the moderator quality of object relations (QOR), a strong effect emerged: men with high QOR showed a large negative effect of transference interpretations, and women with low QOR showed a large positive effect. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of symptom change, women responded better to therapy with transference interpretations, while men responded better to therapy without transference interpretations. Patient sex showed moderator effects over and above the moderator effects of QOR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00423462.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".