Therapist’s interpersonal style and therapy benefit as the determinants of personality self-reports in clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND/AIM. In (counter)transference relationship therapist's interpersonal style, implying the perceived relation of therapist to a client (patient) in terms of control, autonomy, care and positive feedback, has been shown to be important. The aim of our study was to assess the relationship between therapist's interpersonal style and clients' personality self-reports. Within therapist's interpersonal style, preliminary validation of the Therapist's Interpersonal Style Scale has been conducted, which included double translation method, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, as well as the reliability tests of the derived components. METHODS: This research was conducted on a group of 206 clients, attending one of the four psychotherapy modalities: psychoanalysis, gestalt therapy, cognitive-behavioral and systemic family therapy. Beside Therapist's Interpersonal Style Scale, Big Five Questionnaire and Therapy Benefit Scale were administered, showing good internal consistency. RESULTS: Principal component analysis of therapist's interpersonal style singled out two components Supportive Autonomy and Ignoring Control, explaining 42% of variance. Two-factor model of the therapist's styles was better fitted in confirmatory factor analysis than the original 4-factor model. Structural model showing indirect and direct effects of therapist's interpersonal styles on self-reports in clients indicates good fitness (χ²(12) = 8.932, p = 0.709; goodness-of-fit index = 0.989), with Ignoring Control having direct effect on Stability, Supportive Autonomy on Therapy Benefit, and Therapy Benefit on Plasticity. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate the importance of further research on therapist's interpersonal style, as well as further validation of the instrument that measures this construct. Besides, a client's perception that the therapy is being helpful could instigate more explorative and approach-oriented behavior, what indirectly might contribute to a client's stability.
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".