Development of Empathic Reaction and Attitude of Clinical Psychology Students as a Therapeutic Technique: Evidence from KSA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Empathy is a core element in the psychologist–patient relationship. The aim of this study was to investigate whether clinical psychology program students can gain empathy skills and improve attitudes by joining internship training year and practice contact with clients. We expected that contacting with patients during internship training year program would primarily purposefully develop the affective and cognitive component of empathy and in consequence, improve attitudes necessary for the performance of the challenging psychologist profession. Internship training year of future clinical psychologists was carried out once a week, 30 meetings, 90 hours in total, and focused mainly on the development of the following 5 components: Adequate self-assessment and assessment of others. Adequate identification of emotional stimuli. Taking another peoples’ perspective. Ability to respond empathically. Willingness to forgive oneself and others. Research objectives were specified as follows: Find out whether the training program had an effect on increasing the level of empathy in students – future clinical psychologists. Find out whether the training program had an effect on increasing the level of attitude in students – future clinical psychologists. Compare the level of individual variables in the experimental and the control groups after carrying out the training program. Methods: 35 clinical psychologists students were included into two groups. The experimental group participated in a training program during the internship study year and contact with patients . The control group participated in a regular study course. After the internship study year, empathy was assessed by Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ), and attitude was measured by Helping attitude scale (HAS). Results and Conclusions: Empathy and attitudes toward the humanities improved significantly (p < 0.01) after participation in the internship training program. Participants of the intervention group showed significantly higher levels of empathy when rated by TEQ and the control group. In addition, significant group differences were observed in attitude when assessed by HAS. The results underpin the value of internship training year in clinical psychologists study programs.
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 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 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".