Testing a deliberate practice workshop for developing appropriate responsivity to resistance markers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deliberate practice (DP) is an emerging training method for improving individual performance that may be worth adapting and testing for applicability to groups, given the prevalence of group training for continuing education. This study compared an adapted DP workshop to the same traditional, non-DP workshop for managing ambivalence and resistance. The same presenter delivered the workshops to 88 randomly assigned community psychotherapists. The DP workshop involved repeated interaction with multiple recreations of resistance, with consistent group feedback especially on ideal expert performance. The control workshop was more didactic, with fewer opportunities for practice and feedback. We assessed video vignette performance and coded 20-min interviews with ambivalent interviewees from the community. Both workshops produced equivalent trainee satisfaction and significant increases in self-reported skills. However, the DP versus control group demonstrated better observer-rated skill on all performance measures postworkshop. Although skills declined to 4-month retest in both groups, the DP trainees retained their relative advantage over traditional workshop trainees. Moreover, at the 4-month follow-up, DP versus control trainees were rated as more empathic by community interviewees and self-reported practicing the skills at higher rates. These findings support the continued investigation of DP as a means for improving therapist skill in continuing education workshops. (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 | 0.027 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".