Markers for context-responsiveness: Client baseline interpersonal problems moderate the efficacy of two psychotherapies for generalized anxiety disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To follow-up a randomized clinical trial that compared the acute and long-term efficacy of 15 sessions of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) versus CBT integrated with motivational interviewing (MI) for severe generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; Westra, Constantino, & Antony, 2016), we (a) characterized the sample's baseline interpersonal problems, and (b) analyzed the role of several theory-relevant problems as moderators of the comparative treatment effects on outcome. METHOD: We first compared clients' (N = 85) baseline interpersonal problems profile to a general clinical sample. We next conducted piecewise, 2-level growth models to analyze the interactive effects of treatment condition and the hypothesized interpersonal problem indices of nonassertiveness (ranging from low to high), exploitability (ranging from low to high on this specific combination of nonassertiveness and friendliness), and overall agency (ranging from more problems of being too submissive to more problems of being too domineering, including friendly or hostile variants) on acute and follow-up worry reduction. Finally, we conducted hierarchical generalized linear models to examine these interactive effects on the likelihood of achieving clinically meaningful worry reduction across follow-up. RESULTS: As expected, the GAD clients evidenced more nonassertive and exploitable interpersonal problems than the general clinical sample. Also as predicted, clients with more problematic nonassertiveness and low overall agency in their relationships had greater follow-up worry reduction in MI-CBT versus CBT, including to a clinically significant degree for the agency by treatment interaction. CONCLUSIONS: GAD-specific interpersonal problems can serve as contextual markers for integrative treatment selection and planning. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".