MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2297797233 · doi:10.14288/1.0053746

Conceptualizing counsellor competence in the treatment of eating disorders

2009· article· en· W2297797233 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Meris Williams

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEating disordersPsychologyCompetence (human resources)Developmental psychologyPsychotherapistClinical psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Counsellors are ethically obligated to provide only those services that are within the bounds of their professional competence (American Counseling Association [ACA], 1988; Canadian Counselling Association [CCA], 1999; Canadian Psychological Association [CPA], 1991). Counsellors who provide services to individuals with eating disorders (EDs) must be competent to do so, and must recognize the boundaries of that competence. The purpose of the study was to begin to identify the competencies associated specifically with psychotherapy for EDs. A three round Delphi procedure was employed to answer the following research question: according to experts in the treatment of EDs in British Columbia, what competencies are essential for basic, independent therapeutic practice with clients who have EDs? A panel of 29 expert participants from a variety of disciplines reached a consensus on 188 competencies thought to be "essential" to this work, and on 21 competencies thought to be "useful but not necessary". Based on an informal categorization of items, several topic areas were identified as having potential importance for competent practice: (1) aspects of the ED therapist's role may overlap with the activities of other health professionals involved in the treatment of EDs; (2) an interdisciplinary approach is key for client care; (3) the strength and quality of the therapeutic relationship can help or hinder a client's recovery from an ED; (4) empirically supported treatments for EDs were not considered "essential"; and (5) the therapist's resolution of his/her own experience of body dissatisfaction/disordered eating/an ED requires consideration. The list may help counsellors and counsellors-in-training who wish to work in the field of EDs to identify the competencies they possess and those they would like to develop in their education, continuing education, and training. Thus, the list could help them take steps in their responsibility to assess their competence to work with clients who have EDs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicEating Disorders and Behaviors→French-language works237,207→