Using the Internet to Train Therapists: Randomized Comparison of Two Scalable Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the major barriers to the dissemination and implementation of psychological treatments is the scarcity of suitably trained therapists. The currently accepted method of training is not scalable. Recently, a scalable form of training, Web-centered training, has been shown to have promise. OBJECTIVE: The goal of our research was to conduct a randomized comparison of the relative effects of independent and supported Web-centered training on therapist competence and investigate the persistence of the effects. METHODS: Eligible therapists were recruited from across the United States and Canada. They were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 forms of training in enhanced cognitive behavior therapy (CBT-E), a multicomponent evidence-based psychological treatment for any form of eating disorder. Independent training was undertaken autonomously, while supported training was accompanied by support from a nonspecialist worker. Therapist competence was assessed using a validated competence measure before training, after 20 weeks of training, and 6 months after the completion of training. RESULTS: A total of 160 therapists expressed interest in the study, and 156 (97.5%) were randomized to the 2 forms of training (81 to supported training and 75 to independent training). Mixed effects analysis showed an increase in competence scores in both groups. There was no difference between the 2 forms of training, with mean difference for the supported versus independent group being -0.06 (95% Cl -1.29 to 1.16, P=.92). A total of 58 participants (58/114, 50.9%) scored above the competence threshold; three-quarters (43/58, 74%) had not met this threshold before training. There was no difference between the 2 groups in the odds of scoring over the competence threshold (odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.99; P=.96). At follow-up, there was no significant difference between the 2 training groups (mean difference 0.19, 95% Cl -1.27 to 1.66, P=.80). Overall, change in competence score from end of training to follow-up was not significant (mean difference -0.70, 95% CI -1.52 to 0.11, P=.09). There was also no difference at follow-up between the training groups in the odds of scoring over the competence threshold (OR 0.95, 95% Cl 0.34 to 2.62; P=.92). CONCLUSIONS: Web-centered training was equally effective whether undertaken independently or accompanied by support, and its effects were sustained. The independent form of Web-centered training is particularly attractive as it provides a means of training large numbers of geographically dispersed therapists at low cost, thereby overcoming several obstacles to the widespread dissemination of psychological treatments.
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 | 0.038 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".