Elucidating the Elements of Clinical Case Consultation in Cognitive Processing Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research shows the value of consultation following training in Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT), a frontline psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder; however, the elements of successful CPT consultation are not delineated. This study’s aim was to elucidate the elements of successful consultation in CPT. Participants ( N = 41) were mental health clinicians, including psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists, and consultants ( N = 4), who provided clinical case consultation. The clinicians participated in group clinical case consultation for 6 months following their workshop participation. Thirty audio recorded consultation calls were analyzed using thematic analysis. Elements were identified and organized according to the following themes: Organization, Knowledge Consolidation, Case Conceptualization, Directive Instruction, Nondirective Instruction, and Provision of Feedback. Important next steps include: (a) developing a model positing how the elements of successful clinical case consultation in CPT fit together and (b) identifying its mechanisms.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".