Congruence/genuineness: A meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Congruence or genuineness is a relationship element with an extensive and important history within psychotherapy. Congruence is an aspect of the therapy relationship with two facets, one intrapersonal and one interpersonal. Mindful genuineness, personal awareness, and authenticity characterize the intrapersonal element. The capacity to respectfully and transparently give voice to ones' experience to another person characterizes the interpersonal component. Although most fully developed in the person-centered tradition, congruence is highly valued in many theoretical orientations. In this article, we define and provide clinical examples of congruence. We also present an original meta-analysis of its relation with psychotherapy improvement. An analysis of 21 studies (k), representing 1,192 patients (N), resulted in a weighted aggregate effect size (r) of .23 (95% confidence interval = [.13, .32]) or an estimated d of .46. Moderators of the association between congruence and outcome are also investigated. In closing, we address patient contributions, limitations of the extant research, diversity considerations, and therapeutic practices that might promote congruence and improve psychotherapy outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.025 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".