“The therapist responded to my coaching”: patients’ perspectives on coaching communications in psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients in psychotherapy may inform, orient, and redirect their therapist according to their particular problems, goals, and needs––conceptualized by Control-Mastery Theory as the patient coaching the therapist. Yet there has been limited research on patients’ subjective experiences of engaging in coaching communication. This study used an online survey to obtain patients’ perspectives on the degree to which they coached their therapist and the effects and implications of having done so. Of 248 participants who had received psychotherapy, 123 provided text responses for qualitative analysis regarding their experience of coaching communication. Thematic analysis was employed to extract themes from these narratives. Major themes included the use of coaching to orient the therapist to desired goals and preferred intervention approaches, and to redirect the therapist when necessary. Themes regarding the impact of coaching included positive experiences when coaching was well received and negative experiences when therapists ignored the patient’s coaching. Findings from this preliminary investigation suggest that coaching communication may be an important feature of the therapeutic process for many patients, with implications for therapist responsiveness and therapy outcomes. Moreover, the findings indicate that patients’ coaching communication is a worthy subject for future psychotherapy research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".