Benchmarking Community‐Based Couple Therapy: Considering Measurement Reactivity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Couple therapy has been shown to be effective in randomized clinical trials; however, results from naturalistic couple therapy have been less consistent. This study utilized a benchmarking approach to compare the effectiveness of couple therapy in a community-based setting with findings from efficacy treatments, such as treatment within randomized clinical trials. The current study is the largest couple therapy sample published to date (N = 3,347 couples). Clients in couple therapy were asked to provide initial and weekly ratings of symptomology on the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45.2). We found that treatment effect sizes found at community clinics were smaller than efficacy studies (i.e., the benchmark). However, when taking into account measurement reactivity, the effect sizes were comparable. This is the first benchmarking study for community-based couple therapy, allowing for meaningful comparisons and understanding of outcomes in real-world couple therapy. Implications for the field are offered in terms of evaluating community-based psychotherapy studies with benchmarking for couple therapy. Results of this study provide clinicians and researchers a way to meaningfully compare couple therapy outcomes, accounting for differences in community-based practices and randomized clinical trials. This benchmark also underscores the impact of measurement sensitivity, an issue commonly overlooked in psychotherapy research and practice.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it