MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7024959478

Therapist Emotional Reactivity and Performance Following a Motivational Interviewing Workshop With and Without Deliberate Practice

2023· other· en· W7024959478 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotivational interviewingContext (archaeology)AmbivalenceTherapeutic relationshipInterpersonal communicationResistance (ecology)Interview
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some individuals are more reactive to emotional stimuli than others, and this is particularly relevant to psychotherapists due to their frequent interaction with emotionally evocative material. Therapist reactivity can be particularly triggered during challenging clinical moments such as resistance, leading to negative therapy process which can be detrimental to client outcome. Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a therapeutic approach that specifically focuses on exploring ambivalence about change and minimizing resistance in psychotherapy, and therefore is a beneficial strategy to address many challenging interpersonal moments in psychotherapy. Therapists would benefit from training in MI to specifically address these challenging clinical moments, and this may be especially important for therapists who are highly emotionally reactive. Deliberate Practice (DP) has shown promise as a training approach that may result in greater maintenance of skill, and therefore may be explored as a more impactful and long-lasting way to train therapists in MI. The present study involved both traditional and DP training in the context of a continuing education workshop. The impact of training type on therapist reactivity to challenging clinical moments was examined immediately following training, and four months later. The relationship between therapist reactivity, performance, and type of training was also investigated. Eighty-eight community therapists participated in training to use MI principles to effectively manage client ambivalence and resistance. Therapists were randomly assigned to receive a 2-day training workshop based on DP principles, or to receive a 2-day traditional didactic workshop. Self-reported arousal to video vignettes of difficult scenarios was collected prior to the workshop, immediately following the workshop, and 4 months later, and therapists participated in 20-minute interviews with ambivalent volunteers at both post-workshop and follow-up. Therapist dynamic Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia (dynamic RSA) was measured during these interviews as a psychophysiological measure of emotional reactivity, and interviews were coded for resistance to measure therapist performance. Results demonstrated a decrease in self-reported arousal only for those who engaged in DP training, though this was not maintained at follow-up. There was a difference in dynamic RSA between groups at post-treatment, where the DP group uniquely demonstrated quadratic change, indicating the training had a differing effect. Despite this differing trajectory, RSA showed an overall increase at both post-workshop and follow-up in both groups. This suggests that regardless of training type, therapists were regulating their emotions and possibly having a compassionate response, rather than a stress response, to these interviews. Dynamic RSA between workshop groups was unable to be assessed at follow-up due to a smaller sample size for psychophysiological assessment. In the investigation of the impact of training on performance, greater self-reported arousal was found to predict less resistance in interviews, but there was no relationship observed between psychophysiological arousal and resistance. This study supports the efficacy of DP training in reducing therapist arousal to difficult clinical scenarios, and the importance of continued DP in order to maintain one’s skills. Clinical and training implications 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYork University Digital Library (York University)Same topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207