Motivation and treatment credibility predict alliance in cognitive behavioral treatment for youth with anxiety disorders in community clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined whether motivation and treatment credibility predicted alliance in a 10-session cognitive behavioral treatment delivered in community clinics for youth anxiety disorders. METHOD: = 11.4 years, standard deviation = 2.1, range 8-15 years, 49.5% boys) with anxiety disorders-rated treatment motivation at pretreatment and perceived treatment credibility after session 1. Youths and therapists (YT) rated alliance after session 3 (early) and session 7 (late). Hierarchical linear models were applied to examine whether motivation and treatment credibility predicted YT early alliance, YT alliance change, and YT alliance agreement. RESULTS: Motivation predicted high early YT alliance, but not YT alliance change or alliance agreement. Youth-rated treatment credibility predicted high early youth alliance and high YT positive alliance change, but not early therapist alliance or alliance agreement. CONCLUSION: Conclusion Efforts to enhance youth motivation and treatment credibility early in treatment could facilitate the formation of a strong YT alliance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".