Examining the relationship between therapist traits and empathy on the development of therapist empathic skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated relationships between empathy and the therapist traits of perspective taking, susceptibility to emotional contagion, and valuing and acceptance of emotional experiences, comparing masters- (N = 14) and doctoral-level (N = 5) counselling trainees. Three measures of state empathy were used: the BLRI self-report forms for client and therapist (Barrett-Lennard, 1962), and the observer-rated Measure of Expressed Empathy (Watson Prosser, 2002). Participants also completed the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983), the Emotional Contagion Scale (Doherty, 1997), and the Scales for Emotional Experiencing (Behr Becker, 2004). The study's purpose was to further current understanding of the relationship between training and empathy. A significant effect of training on state but not trait empathy was found, as well as support for relationships among training, state empathy, and the therapist traits of perspective taking and emotional experiencing. Results suggest training helps trainees develop and manage affective reactions related to empathy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".