The drama therapy core process coding system: A transtheoretical capturing of drama therapy processes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, several initiatives have been launched to increase empirical research in the field of drama therapy. This article presents the Drama Therapy Core Process Coding System (DT-CPCS), developed by the North American Drama Therapy Association’s Core Processes Research Subcommittee with the aim to operationalize and observe core processes central to drama therapy. This article outlines the DT-CPCS which was developed through a multi-phase, 2.5-year research process involving analyzing videos of sessions using several drama therapy approaches and client populations. The resulting coding system reflects notable changes from previous conceptualizations of the drama therapy core processes. Specifically, the DT-CPCS identifies engagement with dramatic reality as the principal core process. This core process occurs in two distinct forms, liminal and projective, and is experienced across five states within the dramatic reality: active, active/reflective, active/receptive, reflective, and receptive. The DT-CPCS also allows for the identification of five observable core processes: dramatic embodiment, dramatic play, witnessing, reflection in dramatic reality, and reflection on dramatic reality. Two previously conceptualized core processes, distancing and multidimensional relationship, were also found to be not observably distinct and were integrated into the principal core process of engagement with dramatic reality. The DT-CPCS offers standardized language and a coding structure that supports research, training, and supervision, with the potential to link drama therapy techniques to clinical outcomes. Implications for further empirical investigation and development of future quality measures are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it