ArticleJournal of psycholinguistic research2025
Epistemological Foundation for the Use of the Linguistic Measures of the Referential Process.
Article in Journal of psycholinguistic research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The analysis of epistemological beliefs underlying psychotherapeutic interventions has been largely neglected by research in psychotherapy, training in psychotherapy and psychology, and often by theorists of different clinical orientations. The main risks of this neglect are the unexamined adoption of the epistemology that is taken for granted by the culture and is largely inconsistent with the specifics of the object of study of psychological science; the reduction of intervention effectiveness due to the inconsistency between epistemology, theory, and practice; and the maintenance of the gap between research and practice due to the different epistemologies used by clinicians and researchers. This article discusses the scientific status of the computerized linguistic measures of the Referential Process when used for clinical and research purposes. Our claim is that these measures developed to test Wilma Bucci's multiple code theory don't represent an objective examination of the psychotherapeutic process, but rather a methodological option to guide the researcher and clinician in identifying the most plausible scientific hypotheses about the complex phenomenon of emotional communication between speakers. Comparison of data from different points of view (therapist, patient, external observer, computerized linguistic analysis, etc.) and in different contexts (therapies, psychological tests, everyday conversations, experimental situations, etc.) will be presented as promising and viable ways to examine the validity of the hypotheses based on the Referential Process theory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.