Adventure Therapy and Routine Outcome Monitoring of Treatment: The Time Is Now
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
Background: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) was popularized in the mid-1990s to improve client outcomes in psychotherapy, though implementation in clinical practice has been slow. Although increased outcome research in adventure therapy (AT) in the last decade has demonstrated AT as a viable treatment option, recent reviews have found worrying trends regarding research methodology and poorly substantiated claims of superiority. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore the potential for ROM in AT. Methodology/Approach: We conducted a brief review of the literature on ROM and offered a discussion that positions principles of ROM with the nascent knowledge base of AT. Findings/Conclusions: We propose ROM is a viable next step in AT research and practice. ROM can explore when change is likely to occur during an AT program and provide a platform for improving client engagement and outcomes. Implications: We recommend implementation of ROM in AT and that future AT research explore therapist effects and important therapeutic factors, such as the therapeutic alliance and deterioration.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it