Fluctuations in therapist responsiveness facing clients with borderline personality disorder: Starting therapy on the right foot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present paper focuses on therapist responsiveness during the initial therapy session with clients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), aiming to analyze therapist responsiveness at short intervals during the initial session and determine if it can predict therapeutic alliance from both therapist and client viewpoints. METHOD: A sample of 47 clients participated in the study for 10 sessions of therapy. Therapeutic alliance from therapists' and clients' perspectives was rated after each session; external raters assessed therapist responsiveness during the initial session. Multiple linear regression models and linear mixed models with backward variable selection based on AIC were run to analyze whether specific therapist behaviors during session one predicted therapeutic alliance rated from therapists' and clients' perspectives. RESULTS: The results indicate that therapists normalizing and validating clients' experiences during the first session are crucial for establishing therapeutic alliance for BPD clients; however, for therapists, the increase in variability of emotions verbalized by clients during the initial session negatively impacts therapeutic alliance. CONCLUSION: The study contributes to further understand the impact of therapists' behavior at the beginning of therapy with BPD clients. Therapist responsiveness is crucial for therapy outcome but is methodologically challenging; therefore, efforts in this direction should be pursued.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".