The relationship between client-counselor race and counselor use of reflective listening skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research shows that minority populations underutilize counseling services and have high dropout rates (Hser Evans Huang & Anglin 2004; King & Canada 2004). Additionally counselor behavior is directly related to treatment outcomes (Okiishi et al. 2006; Okiishi Lambert Nielson & Ogles 2003). That is counselors with good rapport building skills have better client outcomes. This study explored the relationship between client race and counselor behavior. The study participants were 5 student case managers/counselors and 10 clients at a substance abuse intensive outpatient program. In an attempt to control extraneous variables all counselors selected were Caucasian. Three counselors were males and two were females. All clients selected were males two Caucasian and two African American. Data was collected by accessing archived counseling sessions recorded as part of the program's clinical service. Counselor use of reflective listening skills was coded by two independent raters using the Motivational Interviewing Skills Code (MISC) 2.0 (Miller Moyers Ernst & Amrhein 2003). A paired-sample t test was used to analyze the differences in group means. The results showed that counselors used more reflective listening behaviors with Caucasian clients versus African American clients.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".