The efficacy of group psychotherapy for adults with perfectionism: A randomized controlled trial of dynamic-relational therapy versus psychodynamic supportive therapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial investigated the efficacy of group dynamic-relational therapy (DRT) relative to group psychodynamic supportive therapy (PST) in treating perfectionism and improving psychological functioning. HYPOTHESIS: Psychodynamically informed therapies, particularly DRT, will be efficacious in treating perfectionism and functioning outcomes. METHOD: Based on a comprehensive conceptualization of perfectionism, 80 community-recruited, highly perfectionistic individuals were randomly allocated to 12 sessions of group DRT (n = 41; 5 groups) or group PST (n = 39; 5 groups). Patients completed measures of trait perfectionism, perfectionistic self-presentation, perfectionistic cognitions, symptom distress, life satisfaction, and work and social adjustment at pre-, mid-, and posttreatment and 6 months posttreatment. RESULTS: Multigroup latent growth curve modeling revealed significant (p < .05) decreases in all perfectionism components and improvements in all functioning outcomes from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up in both DRT and PST. Likewise, analyses revealed substantial reliable improvement across conditions for all perfectionism components. Last, moderate-to-large between-group differences favoring DRT over PST were found for self-oriented perfectionism, perfectionistic self-promotion, nondisplay of imperfection, nondisclosure of imperfection, and work and social adjustment. CONCLUSION: Findings provide evidence for the use of psychodynamic approaches in the treatment of perfectionism and support the relative efficacy of DRT for components of perfectionism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".