Which, who and when? Therapeutic processes in group cognitive behaviour therapy for anxiety disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evidence for the effect of therapeutic alliance in group cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for anxiety disorders is unclear. Identifying whether the alliance-outcome relationship depends on (1) which components are assessed, (2) who is measuring the alliance and (3) when the alliance is measured will help to clarify the role of the client-therapist relationship in therapy. The present study explored the effects of alliance component (agreement vs. bond), rater perspective (client vs. therapist) and timing (early vs. late therapy) on the alliance-outcome relationship. Individuals with an anxiety disorder enrolled into transdiagnostic group CBT were studied, with n = 78 at early therapy and n = 57 at late therapy. Results showed that greater client-rated agreement significantly predicted improved post-treatment outcomes throughout the course of therapy, while stronger client-rated bond in late therapy predicted reduced treatment gains. In contrast, therapist perceptions of agreement and bond were not associated with post-treatment outcomes at any point in therapy. Client-reported group cohesion also was not associated with additional variance in outcome after accounting for client-rated alliance. Overall, the findings highlight the importance of prioritizing the client's perception of the client-therapist relationship in CBT for anxiety disorders, as well as distinguishing the effects of component, rater and timing in future process-outcome studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".