Two‐Year Follow‐up Outcomes in Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy: An Investigation of Relationship Satisfaction and Attachment Trajectories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy (EFT; The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creating connection. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge) is an evidence-based couple therapy that aims to create lasting change for couples (Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(1), 67-79). Although studies have demonstrated strong results in follow-up (Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28(4), 391-398), less is known about relationship functioning across time after therapy has ended. We modelled change in relationship satisfaction and attachment from pre-therapy through 24 months follow-up in 32 couples. HLM results confirmed a significant growth pattern demonstrating increases in relationship satisfaction and secure base behaviour and decreases in relationship specific attachment anxiety over the course of therapy and across follow-up at a decelerated rate. These findings support the theoretical assumption that EFT helps couples engaged in therapy create lasting relationship satisfaction and attachment change.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".