Improving self‐esteem through integrative group therapy for personality dysfunction: Investigating the role of the therapeutic alliance and quality of object relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate change in self-esteem through intensive group treatment for personality dysfunction, by exploring: (a) the relationship between patients' experience of therapeutic alliance and improvement in self-esteem during treatment, including patients' quality of object-relations (QOR) as a possible moderator; and (b) the association between improvement in self-esteem during treatment, and depressive symptoms 9 months later. METHOD: Eighty patients with personality dysfunction, consecutively enrolled in a group-oriented treatment program, were assessed at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 9 months follow-up. RESULTS: Especially for patients with lower QOR, alliance predicted self-esteem change during treatment. In addition, change in self-esteem during treatment predicted follow-up depression severity, even when controlling for within-treatment symptom change. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with impoverished inner relational representations may benefit more from a secure alliance in terms of improving their self-esteem. Change in self-esteem may also be important in preventing relapse of depressive symptoms in people with personality dysfunction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".