Creating a climate for therapist improvement: A case study of an agency focused on outcomes and deliberate practice.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence suggests that psychotherapists may not increase in effectiveness over accrued experience in naturalistic settings, even settings that provide access to patients' outcomes. The current study examined changes in psychotherapists' effectiveness within an agency making a concerted effort to improve outcomes through the use of routine outcome monitoring coupled with ongoing consultation and the planful application of feedback including the use of deliberate practice. Data were available for 7 years of implementation from 5,128 patients seen by 153 psychotherapists. Results indicate that outcomes indeed improved across time within the agency, with increases of d = 0.035 (p = .003) per year. In contrast with previous reports, psychotherapists in the current sample showed improvements within their own caseloads across time (d = 0.034, p = .042). It did not appear that the observed agency-level improvement was due to the agency simply hiring higher-performing psychotherapists or losing lower-performing psychotherapists. Implications of these findings are discussed in relation to routine outcome monitoring, expertise in psychotherapy, and quality improvement within mental health care. (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.
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 it