Predictors and moderators of between-therapists and within-therapist differences in depressed outpatients’ experiences of the Rogerian conditions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extent to which patients experience their therapists as providing empathy, positive regard and genuineness (the Rogerian Conditions) is an important predictor of outcome in the psychotherapy of depression (Zuroff & Blatt, 2006). Using data from 157 depressed outpatients treated by 27 therapists in the cognitive-behavior therapy, interpersonal therapy, or clinical management with placebo conditions of the Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program (Elkin et al., 1989), Zuroff, Kelly, Leybman, Blatt, and Wampold (2010) showed that between-therapists and within-therapist differences in Rogerian Conditions at the second treatment session predicted more rapid reductions in overall maladjustment. We conducted novel analyses intended to identify: 1) predictors of between-therapists and within-therapist differences in Rogerian Conditions and 2) moderators of the effects on maladjustment of between-therapists and within-therapist differences in Rogerian Conditions. Patients with lower levels of self-critical perfectionism, higher levels of an adaptive form of dependency or higher expectations of warmth from their therapists experienced higher levels of Rogerian Conditions than their therapist's average patient. High baseline self-critical perfectionism diminished the between-therapists effect of Rogerian Conditions on maladjustment, whereas baseline adaptive dependency enhanced the within-therapist effect of Rogerian Conditions. Results shed additional light on the centrality of patient characteristics, the Rogerian Conditions, and their transactions and interactions on outcome in brief outpatient therapy for depression.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".