Therapeutic alliance and binge-eating outcomes in a group therapy context.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The therapeutic alliance in individual and group psychotherapy is associated with treatment outcomes for a variety of disorders. However, debate persists about the centrality of the alliance in determining positive outcomes. We examined the alliance-outcome relationship across 20 sessions of emotionally focused group therapy (EFGT) for binge-eating disorder (BED). We hypothesized that (1) previous session alliance increase will predict lower subsequent session binge eating level while controlling for previous session binge eating level; and (2) previous session binge eating decline will predict higher subsequent session alliance level while controlling previous session alliance level. Participants were 118 individuals with BED who received 20 sessions of EFGT in 8 groups. Levels of binge eating and therapeutic alliance to the therapist were measured weekly. Linear growth in alliance during group therapy was associated with reduced binge eating at 6 months' posttreatment. We also found that the group's and the individual's alliance scores and binge-eating episodes were significantly associated across treatment, suggesting a mutual influence of the group's and individual's experience of the alliance with the therapist. Regarding the first hypothesis, previous session alliance increase was significantly associated with lower subsequent session binge eating. Regarding the second hypothesis, previous session binge-eating decline was not significantly related to higher subsequent session alliance. The findings provide evidence in a group therapy context for a model in which alliance change influences subsequent symptom levels, but not the other way around. (PsycINFO Database Record
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) | 0.000 | 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".