Therapist empathy, homework compliance, and outcome in cognitive behavioral therapy for generalized anxiety disorder: partitioning within- and between-therapist effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although client-perceived therapist empathy relates to positive therapy outcomes, including in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), little is known about how empathy exerts its ameliorative effect. One possible way is by promoting clients' subsequent homework compliance, a variable that also predicts positive outcomes in CBT. The present study sought to investigate simultaneously, in the context of 43 therapist-client dyads receiving 15 sessions of CBT for generalized anxiety disorder, (1) the association of early client-perceived therapist empathy (averaged over sessions 1, 3, 5) with mid-treatment client homework compliance (averaged over sessions 6, 8, 10); (2) the association of mid-treatment homework compliance on client posttreatment worry severity; and (3) the indirect effect of early perceived therapist empathy on posttreatment worry through mid-treatment homework compliance. Given that clients were nested within therapists, we examined both within- and between-therapist differences in clients' ratings of therapist empathy and homework compliance, and tested both of these indices as predictors of the relevant dependent variables in a multilevel model. At the within-therapist level (i.e., differences between clients within a given therapist's caseload), greater early empathy was associated with greater mid-treatment homework compliance. At the between-therapist level (i.e., differences between therapists across all of their cases), greater between-therapist homework compliance was related to lower posttreatment worry. Finally, homework compliance was not found to mediate the relationship between empathy and posttreatment outcome. The results underscore the importance of parsing client and therapist effects, and are discussed with regard to their training and research implications.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".