Identifying patient verbal coaching in psychotherapy
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
Abstract According to control‐mastery theory (CMT), patients enter therapy with a plan (often unconscious) for how to work on their problems and disconfirm pathogenic beliefs. Patients want therapists to understand their plans and help them master their problems. CMT proposes that patients frequently coach their therapist to get them oriented and attuned to critical aspects of their treatment plan. The theory views patients coaching their therapists as an important part of the therapeutic process. The present study represents the first empirical research on this concept of coaching. It was designed to assess whether trained clinical judges could reliably identify and rate instances of patients coaching their therapists from psychotherapy transcript material. Segments from the beginning sessions of three brief (16‐session) psychotherapy cases were presented to clinical judges to rate on the following dimensions: the degree to which a patient communication is coaching; the degree to which a patient communication is intended to help the therapist understand the plan; and the degree to which a patient communication is intended to influence the therapist's behaviour. The results provide empirical evidence that patient coaching communications can be reliably distinguished from non‐coaching communications. Moreover, there was consensus among clinical judges on both the degree to which a coaching communication was intended to help the therapist understand the patient's treatment plan, and the degree to which a coaching communication was intended to influence the therapist's behaviour. Further research is necessary to better understand the vicissitudes of this coaching dynamic in therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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