Interpersonal change as a mediator of the within- and between-patient alliance-outcome association in two treatments for generalized anxiety disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although a better therapeutic alliance associates with treatment outcome, it may do so in different ways. For example, alliance quality may promote improvement as it shifts over time (within-patient changes); alternatively, alliance quality may also, or instead, influence outcome when generally higher or lower for some patients relative to others (between-patient differences). Although both components have been linked to patient improvement, the distinct mechanisms of these associations have been rarely examined. Conceptually, it follows that within-patient alliance fluctuations (representing the changing nature of a current relationship intended to be ameliorative) may facilitate other interpersonal improvements that could, in turn, translate into symptom reduction. This path squares with the corrective relational experience notion. In contrast, whereas as patients' average alliances across therapy may generally facilitate or hinder improvement, the mechanism may not be other relationship functioning. This squares with the notion that when people generally experience good alliances with their therapist, it may reflect an existing relational ability that catalyzes the effectiveness of other nonrelational therapeutic means. This study tested these distinct hypotheses. METHOD: Patients (N = 85) with generalized anxiety disorder were randomly assigned to cognitive-behavioral therapy, either alone or integrated with motivational interviewing. They rated alliance quality, interpersonal problems, and outcome repeatedly. RESULTS: Using multilevel structural equation modeling, both within- and between-patient alliances related to subsequent worry reduction. As predicted, change in interpersonal problems mediated the association only at the within-patient level. CONCLUSIONS: Results contribute to the literature on mechanisms of the within- and between-person alliance-outcome association. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".