Individual goal achievement in group psychotherapy: The roles of psychological mindedness and group process in interpretive and supportive therapy for complicated grief
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to infer psychological meaning in behaviour-referred to as psychological mindedness-has been posited as a patient characteristic that contributes to the therapy process and consequently to therapeutic success. The present study was developed to examine the relationship between patients' psychological mindedness and improvement in patients' personal treatment goals in interpretive and supportive group therapies for complicated grief, along with patients' importance to group process. The study was conducted with a clinical sample of 109 patients (79% female; average 45 years old) receiving treatment for complicated grief. Patients provided severity of distress ratings for individual target objectives at pretreatment and posttreatment. Psychological mindedness was assessed prior to treatment using the video-based, interviewer-rated Psychological Mindedness Assessment Procedure. Patients' importance to the therapy process was rated by therapists and other patients in interpretive and supportive group therapy for complicated grief. Conditional process modelling tested whether psychological mindedness would contribute to patients' goal achievement through patients' importance to group process, moderated by type of therapy. A significant, conditional indirect effect was observed for psychological mindedness as a predictor of improvement in individual target objectives, through patients' importance to group process as rated by therapists, specifically in interpretive therapy. The findings indicate that patients' psychological mindedness significantly contributes to their achievement of individual goals through their contributions to group process in interpretive group therapy. Further research is needed to understand the facilitation of individual goal achievement in supportive therapy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".