Reflective functioning, psychotherapeutic alliance, and outcome in two psychotherapies for bulimia nervosa.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mentalization is a developmental achievement defined as the capacity to understand behavior in terms of mental states. This study investigated mentalization in psychoanalytic psychotherapy (PPT) and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) through a secondary data analysis of findings from a randomized controlled trial for bulimia nervosa. It was hypothesized that mentalization would predict alliance and outcome in both treatments, whereas increase in mentalization was only expected after PPT. Furthermore, it was investigated whether change in mentalization predicted symptom change. A total of 70 participants with bulimia nervosa were randomized to PPT or CBT. Participants were assessed at 3 time points with the Eating Disorder Examination and the Adult Attachment Interview (rated for reflective functioning [RF]). Therapy sessions were rated with the Vanderbilt Therapeutic Alliance Scale. Higher intake RF significantly predicted better alliance, whereas no association was observed between RF and outcome. A significant interaction between time, therapy type, and RF found RF improving more in PPT than in CBT. There was a significant association between RF change and symptom change in the PPT group. The study suggests a relation between RF and psychotherapy process, whereas the relation between RF and outcome is more complex. Furthermore, PPT seems to enhance mentalization, which seems related to symptomatic improvement, suggesting that mentalization might serve as a specific mechanism of change in PPT. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".