{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020538243626062325, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.572093023255814, '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}}
Naive British judgements of therapeutic conditions.

Three studies are reported in which three different groups of naive British judges ranked sets of transcripts of recorded psychotherapy, representative of the ranges of the Accurate Empathy, Non-possessive Warmth and Genuineness scales, developed in the U.S.A. to measure ‘therapeutic conditions’. Rankings of Accurate Empathy examples for the therapist's understanding agreed with the criterion scale fairly consistently. Rankings of Non-possessive Warmth examples for the therapist's warmth were unreliable, but showed slight evidence of concordance with the criterion. Rankings of Genuineness examples for honesty and genuineness showed some evidence of reliable divergence from the criterion scale. Some evidence was obtained that sets of examples chosen to illustrate the ranges of the three therapeutic condition scales are not interchangeable, as far as judgements of understanding are concerned. However, rankings of the Non-possessive Warmth and Genuineness examples for understanding attained a significant degree of reliability, suggesting that the examples chosen to illustrate differing levels of these two scales may also differ in empathy. Together with the results of a preliminary study, these findings encourage the use of the Accurate Empathy scale in British research. They do not, however, give comparable support to the other two scales.