Patients’ Perceptions of Corrective Experiences in Naturalistically Delivered Psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corrective experiences (CEs), which suggest transformative experience(s) for the psychotherapy patient, have a rich theoretical history; yet there is little empirical information on patients' own perceptions of what gets "corrected" from therapy, and what is "corrective" (i.e., the mechanisms driving the CE). To address this gap, we investigated 14 patients' posttreatment accounts of both CE elements in the context of naturalistically delivered individual psychotherapy, using a consensual qualitative research methodology. Extending prior research focused on patients' accounts of CEs while still engaged in treatment (Heatherington et al., 2012), the present results revealed that patients retrospectively identified an array of categories that were deemed corrected, such as positive changes in cognitions, interpersonal problems, self-concepts, symptoms, and behaviors. Patients also identified CEs that may have led to those shifts/transformations, including their therapist's actions (especially giving feedback), their own agentic actions (especially engaging in the therapeutic process), and the patient-therapist collaborative and engaged relationship. Clinical practice implications 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".