The Narrative-Emotion Process Coding System 2.0: A multi-methodological approach to identifying and assessing narrative-emotion process markers in psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recent studies suggest that it is not simply the expression of emotion or emotional arousal in session that is important, but rather it is the reflective processing of emergent, adaptive emotions, arising in the context of personal storytelling and/or Emotion-Focused Therapy (EFT) interventions, that is associated with change. METHOD: To enhance narrative-emotion integration specifically in EFT, Angus and Greenberg originally identified a set of eight clinically derived narrative-emotion integration markers were originally identified for the implementation of process-guiding therapeutic responses. Further evaluation and testing by the Angus Narrative-Emotion Marker Lab resulted in the identification of 10 empirically validated Narrative-Emotion Process (N-EP) markers that are included in the Narrative-Emotion Process Coding System Version 2.0 (NEPCS 2.0). RESULTS: Based on empirical research findings, individual markers are clustered into Problem (e.g., stuckness in repetitive story patterns, over-controlled or dysregulated emotion, lack of reflectivity), Transition (e.g., reflective, access to adaptive emotions and new emotional plotlines, heightened narrative and emotion integration), and Change (e.g., new story outcomes and self-narrative discovery, and co-construction and re-conceptualization) subgroups. To date, research using the NEPCS 2.0 has investigated the proportion and pattern of narrative-emotion markers in Emotion-Focused, Client-Centered, and Cognitive Therapy for Major Depression, Motivational Interviewing plus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and EFT for Complex Trauma. Results have consistently identified significantly higher proportions of N-EP Transition and Change markers, and productive shifts, in mid- and late phase sessions, for clients who achieved recovery by treatment termination. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery is consistently associated with client storytelling that is emotionally engaged, reflective, and evidencing new story outcomes and self-narrative change. Implications for future research, practice and training are discussed.
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 | 0.077 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".