Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present paper elaborates a process perspective of change in psychotherapy for personality disorders (PDs). Firstly, the paper reviews the literature of mechanisms of change in treatments of PD, with the main focus on emotional processing and socio-cognitive processing. Secondly, it proposes an illustrative case-series analysis of eight cases, drawn from a mediation analysis conducted within the context of a randomized controlled trial for borderline personality disorder (BPD). METHOD: As such, cases with good and poor outcomes are compared, as are cases with poor and good intake features and cases with poor and good process markers across treatment. RESULTS: The results illustrate possible pathways to healthy change over the course of four months of treatment, and possible pathways of the absence of change. CONCLUSIONS: These results are discussed with regard to three main research perspectives: the combination of qualitative and quantitative methodology in psychotherapy research may be applied to case study research, a neurobehavioral perspective on change may incorporate the individualized experience in the laboratory and therapist responsiveness to patient characteristics may be a core feature of fostering change. Clinical or methodological significance of this article: The present paper illustrates individual pathways to change in personality disorders. It illustrates how coping capacities influence the process of psychotherapy and outcome in personality disorders. It demonstrates the relevance of individualizing treatments for personality disorders. It demonstrates several integrative features of psychotherapy research, in particular the use of neurobehavioral paradigms and the integration of single-case research within randomized controlled trials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".