Alexithymia and therapeutic alliance: a multiple case study comparing good and poor outcome cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexithymia has been associated with poor outcomes in psychotherapy. This association has been attributed to a difficulty in patients expressing emotions, engaging in emotional tasks and also poor therapeutic alliances. This study aims to better understand alexithymic patients in psychotherapy. A multiple case study design was used. Cases were selected from a larger research project considering their alexithymia level and outcome status, based on the reliable change index and the client perspective on change. Four cases are presented: with and without alexithymia with good and poor outcome. The therapeutic alliance was included as a process measure, evaluated from both client and therapist. At the end a semi structured interview was conducted with both participants, individually. The analysis concerned the integration and triangulation of the therapist and client experience for each case. Each patient was briefly presented and then a focus was made regarding the perception of both participants on the therapeutic alliance and the emotional processing and change process of the client. Both alexithymic cases and the non-alexithymic poor outcome case showed difficulties in the therapeutic alliance, especially from the perspective of the therapist. In these cases, emotional impairments may have contributed to a poor therapeutic alliance, impacting on the outcome. We suggest that a great focus on the therapeutic alliance with alexithymic patients may increase the quality of treatment and it may be more useful for case conceptualization to consider each feature of the alexithymia construct individual.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".