Reactance and engagement in integrative group psychotherapy for personality dysfunction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reactance refers to an oppositional tendency, and may have the potential to interfere with patients' engagement in intensive group psychotherapy. Using data from an integrative group treatment program for patients with personality dysfunction, the present study investigated reactance with regard to program attendance and premature termination, and with patients' perceptions of the group therapy process. Patients with personality dysfunction (N = 138) completed pretreatment assessments of reactance and symptom distress, along with measures of group process during the early phase of treatment. Nonparametric tests were used to examine patients' attendance and termination status. Mediation analyses were conducted to examine reactance as a potential mechanism in the relationship between personality dysfunction and patients' perceptions of group climate. Reactance was associated with reduced attendance and both patient-initiated and administratively determined premature termination. Among patients who provided ratings of group process (n = 117), reactance served as a significant mediator of the relationship between personality dysfunction and perceptions of both avoidant and conflictual group climate. Reactance is a potential impediment to treatment completion, and contributes to patients' negative perceptions of the group therapy process. The findings indicate a need for clinical attention regarding reactance early in the assessment and treatment-preparation process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".