Interpersonal Circumplex Profiles Of Persistent Depression: Goals, Self‐Efficacy, Problems, And Effects Of Group Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We assessed severely and persistently depressed patients' interpersonal self-efficacy, problems, and goals, plus changes in interpersonal functioning and depression during 20 weeks of group therapy. METHOD: Outpatients (32 female, 26 male, mean age = 45 years) completed interpersonal circumplex measures of goals, efficacy, and problems before completing 20 weeks of manualized group therapy, during which we regularly assessed depression and interpersonal style. RESULTS: Compared to normative samples, patients lacked interpersonal agency, including less self-efficacy for expressive/assertive actions; stronger motives to avoid conflict, scorn, and humiliation; and more problems with being too submissive, inhibited, and accommodating. Behavioral Activation and especially Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy interventions produced improvements in depression and interpersonal agency, with increases in "agentic and communal" efficacy predicting subsequent decreases in depression. CONCLUSIONS: While severely and persistently depressed patients were prone to express maladaptive interpersonal dispositions, over the course of group therapy, they showed increasingly agentic and beneficial patterns of cognitions, motives, and behaviors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".