{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02616279069767442, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0029069767441860465, 'mean_word_length': 6.0272108843537415, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Goldilocks on the couch: Moderate levels of psychodynamic and process-experiential technique predict outcome in psychodynamic therapy

Abstract Objectives: Greater symptom change is often assumed to follow greater technique use, a “more is better” approach. We tested whether psychodynamic techniques, as well as common factors and techniques from other orientations, had a curvilinear relation to outcome (i.e., whether moderate or “just right” intervention levels predict better outcome than lower or higher levels). Methods: For 33 patients receiving supportive-expressive psychodynamic psychotherapy for depression, interventions were assessed at Week 4 using the multitheoretical list of therapeutic interventions and symptoms were rated with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Results: Moderate psychodynamic and experiential techniques predicted greater symptom change compared to lower or higher levels. Conclusion: This “Goldilocks effect” suggests a more complex relation of intervention use to outcome might exist.