Client Retrospective Accounts of Corrective Experiences in Motivational Interviewing Integrated With Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Generalized Anxiety Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A corrective experience (CE) is one "in which a person comes to understand or experience affectively an event or relationship in a different and unexpected way" (Castonguay & Hill, 2012, p. 5). CEs disconfirm clients' expectations based on past problematic experiences, and can be emotional, relational, behavioral, and/or cognitive. This qualitative study explored corrective shifts among recovered participants (N = 8) who had received motivational interviewing (MI) integrated with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in a randomized controlled trial comparing CBT alone to MI-CBT for generalized anxiety disorder (Westra, Constantino, & Antony, 2016). We administered a posttherapy interview querying their experience of, and explanations for, any shifts in therapy. Grounded theory analysis yielded three core themes: in command of the worry train, experiencing myself in new ways in therapy, and oriented toward change. Findings are discussed in terms of MI theory, and clinical implications for therapists are provided.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".