Resistance and outcome expectations in cognitive‐behavioural therapy for generalised anxiety disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Greater client resistance has been consistently found to be negatively associated with outcome in psychotherapy. However, the pathways through which resistance impacts such outcomes are underexplored. Given that client outcome expectation (OE) has been identified as an important common factor in psychotherapy, the goals of the present study were to examine: (a) the impact of resistance on subsequent client and therapist OE (COE & TOE, respectively); and (b) whether COE and/or TOE mediate the relationship between resistance and outcome. These relationships were tested among 44 clients with severe generalised anxiety disorder treated with cognitive‐behavioural therapy in the context of a randomised controlled trial (Westra, Constantino, & Antony, 2016). Resistance was measured at a mid‐treatment session, and COE and TOE were assessed at baseline and immediately after the resistance session. Treatment outcome was measured via client‐rated worry severity at post‐treatment. As predicted, higher resistance was associated with lower subsequent COE and TOE; B = −.73, p < .001 and B = −.46, p < .001, respectively. In turn, lower post‐resistance COE predicted higher post‐treatment worry (B = −.5, p < .001), indicating mediation. In contrast, TOE did not mediate the relationship between resistance and outcome (B = −.02, p = .876). These results suggest that resistance can be demoralising to both clients and therapists. However, only lower client morale may be detrimental to therapy outcome. This study contributes to understanding outcome pathways through two common therapy processes.
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 | 0.025 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".