Using computerized text analysis to examine associations between linguistic features and clients’ distress during psychotherapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Raw linguistic data within psychotherapy sessions may provide important information about clients' progress and well-being. In the current study, computerized text analytic techniques were applied to examine whether linguistic features were associated with clients' experiences of distress within and between clients and whether changes in linguistic features were associated with changes in treatment outcome. Transcripts of 729 psychotherapy sessions from 58 clients treated by 52 therapists were analyzed. Prior to each session, clients reported their distress level. Linguistic features were extracted automatically by using natural language parser for first-person singular identification and using positive and negative emotion words lexicon. The association between linguistic features and levels of distress was examined using multilevel models. At the within-client level, fewer first-person singular words, fewer negative emotional words and more positive emotional words were associated with lower distress in the same session; and fewer negative emotion words were associated with lower next session distress (rather small f2 effect sizes = 0.011 < f2 < 0.022). At the between-client level, only first session use of positive emotion words was associated with first session distress (ηp2 effect size = 0.08). A drop in the use of first-person singular words was associated with improved outcome from pre- to posttreatment (small ηp2 effect size = 0.05). The findings provide preliminary support for the association between clients' linguistic features and their fluctuating experience of distress. They point to the potential value of computerized linguistic measures to track therapeutic outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 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 | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".