Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this exploratory study is to investigate the experiences of clients who sought psychotherapeutic help and perceived aspects of the therapy to be harmful. This study used a survey design. Fifty-two participants were recruited through advertisements in the media and sent a questionnaire. The results from the questionnaires were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Responses to the open-ended questions were studied for themes regarding harm. The results show that respondents reported perceiving negative therapist characteristics such as hostility and rudeness; a lack of positive therapist characteristics such as understanding feelings and what was said, being respectful and supportive; and negative therapist behaviors such labelling, having different goals, saying or doing something that decreased respondent's self-esteem. The results from this study suggest that boundary violations considered unethical are perceived as occurring and are being experienced as harmful or unhelpful by the clients. That less than 10 % of the respondents in this study reported experiences of sexual boundary violations, yet were motivated to share their concerns in this study clearly implies that other kinds of interventions fall under client's definitions of harmful psychotherapy. This study underscores the need for continued research in this area; and encourages efforts to be undertaken to help clients who have been harmed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".