MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133021917

The Client's and Therapist's Vocal Qualities in CBT and PE-EFT for Depression

2013· dissertation· en· W7133021917 on OpenAlexaff
Beth Bernholtz

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2013
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysfunctional familyBeck Depression InventoryInterpersonal communicationDepression (economics)Coping (psychology)Voice therapyCognitionSession (web analytics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The psychotherapy client’s vocal quality indicates the quality of and shifts in the client’s engagement in treatment. In contrast, the therapist’s vocal quality is a treatment intervention, either facilitating or hindering the client’s progress. The Client Vocal Quality (CVQ) and Therapist Vocal Quality (TVQ) measures (Rice & Kerr, 1986) were applied to responses in the middle 20 minutes of low and high change sessions for 61 clients who received either cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or process-experiential emotion focused therapy (PE-EFT) for depression (Watson, Gordon, Stermac, Kalogerakos, & Steckley, 2003). Sessions were selected using the Client Task Specific Change Measure-Revised (CTSC-R; Watson, Greenberg, Rice, & Gordon, 1996). Outcome measures included the Beck Depression Inventory, Dysfunctional Attitude Scale, Global Severity Index of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised, Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, Problem-Focused Style of Coping Scale, and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The CVQ categories differentiated between treatment types, with PE-EFT clients expressing a significantly higher proportion of Emotional vocal quality and CBT clients expressing a significantly higher proportion of Externalizing vocal quality. There was no difference between the treatment types for Focused or Limited vocal quality. The CVQ categories predicted outcome. This relationship was particularly evident in the session in which clients first reported moderate to high change on the CTSC-R. The combination of Emotional and Focused categories was a stronger predictor than either category alone. In contrast, a higher proportion of Externalizing vocal quality predicted worse scores. In terms of Therapist Vocal Style, PE-EFT therapists spoke predominantly in the Softened-Irregular Vocal Style, while CBT therapists spoke predominantly in the Natural-Definite Vocal Style. Therapists’ use of a Softened-Irregular Vocal Style, compared with a Natural-Definite Vocal Style, was associated with the client’s report, at the end of therapy, that he/she felt less easily exploited by others and had a greater ability to assert interpersonal boundaries without fear of offending others. Limitations of the study 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.424 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207