Emotion-focused therapy for generalized anxiety disorder: An exploratory study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among psychological therapies for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), cognitive-behavioral therapy has a dominant position as the most studied therapy. However, some researchers have recommended that to increase treatment options and broaden choice for clients, non-cognitive-behavioral therapy models for GAD should be examined. The present study was an exploratory study, assessing pre-post outcomes and 6-month follow-up of emotion-focused therapy for GAD, supplemented by qualitative posttherapy client accounts of helpful and unhelpful aspects of therapy and changes reported since therapy started. Fourteen clients were assessed on several measures focusing on GAD symptoms, depressive symptoms, and general psychological functioning. Quantitative pre-post and 6-month follow-up data indicated large effect sizes. Qualitative data captured changes in emotional functioning, anxiety, self-acceptance, self-confidence, and self-understanding. Clients reported as helpful both relational aspects of the work and in-depth experiential tasks, although some found the experiential aspect of the work difficult. The findings suggest that there may be value in assessing emotion-focused therapy as a treatment for GAD in a randomized controlled trial. (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 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".