MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766218306 · doi:10.1037/cou0000239

Autonomous and controlled motivation for interpersonal therapy for depression: Between-therapists and within-therapist effects.

2017· article· en· W2766218306 on OpenAlex
David C. Zuroff, Carolina McBride, Paula Ravitz, Richard Koestner, D. S. Moskowitz, R. Michael Bagby

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Counseling Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychotherapistClinical psychologyDeci-Interpersonal communicationInterpersonal relationshipInterpersonal psychotherapyRandomized controlled trialSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Differences between therapists in the average outcomes their patients achieve are well documented, and researchers have begun to try to explain such differences (Baldwin & Imel, 2013). Guided by Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), we examined the effects on outcome of differences between therapists in their patients' average levels of autonomous and controlled motivation for treatment, as well as the effects of differences among the patients within each therapist's caseload. Between and within-therapist differences in the SDT construct of perceived relational support were explored as predictors of patients' motivation. Nineteen therapists treated 63 patients in an outpatient clinic providing manualized interpersonal therapy (IPT) for depression. Patients completed the BDI-II at pretreatment, posttreatment, and each treatment session. The Impact Message Inventory was administered at the third session and scored for perceived therapist friendliness, a core element of relational support. We created between-therapists (therapist-level) scores by averaging over the patients in each therapist's caseload; within-therapist (patient-level) scores were computed by centering within each therapist's caseload. As expected, better outcome was predicted by higher levels of therapist-level and patient-level autonomous motivation and by lower levels of therapist-level and patient-level controlled motivation. In turn, autonomous motivation was predicted by therapist-level and patient-level relational support (friendliness). Controlled motivation was predicted solely by patient self-critical perfectionism. The results extend past work by demonstrating that both between-therapists and within-therapist differences in motivation predict outcome. As well, the results suggest that therapists should monitor their interpersonal impact so as to provide relational support. (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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it