Client Accounts of Corrective Experiences in Psychotherapy: Implications for Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Patient Perceptions of Corrective Experiences in Individual Therapy (PPCEIT; Constantino, Angus, Friedlander, Messer, & Moertl, 2011) posttreatment interview guide was developed to provide clinical researchers with an effective mode of inquiry to identify and further explore clients' firsthand accounts of corrective and transformative therapy experiences and their determinants. Not only do findings from the analysis of client corrective experience (CE) accounts help identify what and how CEs happen in or as a result of psychotherapy, but the measure itself may also provide therapists with an effective tool to further enhance clients' awareness, understanding, and integration of transformative change experiences. Accordingly, we discuss in this afterword to the series the implications for clinical practice arising from (a) the thematic analysis of client CE accounts, drawn from a range of clinical samples and international research programs and (b) the clinical effect of completing the PPCEIT posttreatment interview inquiry. We also identify directions for future clinical training and research.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".