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 OpenAlexaff
David C. Zuroff, Carolina McBride, Paula Ravitz, Richard Koestner, D. S. Moskowitz, R. Michael Bagby

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Counseling PsychologySame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207