It is common to criticize certain comments as ‘unhelpful’. This criticism is richer than it might first appear. In this paper, I sketch an account of conversational helpfulness and unhelpfulness, the reasons why they matter, and the utility of calling out comments as helpful or unhelpful. First, some unhelpful comments are or easily could be demoralizing for proponents of projects, and criticizing them as such can diminish, deflect, or defend against that demoralization. Second, some unhelpful comments redirect or derail conversations away from their projects and criticizing comments as unhelpful can steer conversations back. Third, some unhelpful comments are made out of a lack of epistemic effort and criticizing them as such can help maintain epistemic standards, standards of respect for other people and their projects, and can ensure that such comments do not receive more attention and consideration than they deserve.

Background: The value of clients’ reports of their experiences in therapy is widely recognized, yet quantitative methodology has rarely been used to measure clients’ self-reported perceptions of what is helpful over a single session. Aims: A video-rating method using was developed to gather data at brief intervals using process measures of client perceived experience and standardized measures of working alliance (Session Rating Scale; SRS). Data were collected over the course of a single video-recorded session of cognitive therapy (Method of Levels Therapy; Carey, 2006; Mansell et al., 2012). We examined the acceptability and feasibility of the methodology and tested the concurrent validity of the measure by utilizing theory-led constructs. Method: Eighteen therapy sessions were video-recorded and clients each rated a 20-minute session of therapy at two-minute intervals using repeated measures. A multi-level analysis was used to test for correlations between perceived levels of helpfulness and client process variables. Results: The design proved to be feasible. Concurrent validity was borne out through high correlations between constructs. A multi-level regression examined the independent contributions of client process variables to client perceived helpfulness. Client perceived control (b = 0.39, 95% CI .05 to 0.73), the ability to talk freely (b = 0.30, SE = 0.11, 95% CI .09 to 0.51) and therapist approach (b = 0.31, SE = 0.14, 95% CI .04 to 0.57) predicted client-rated helpfulness. Conclusions: We identify a feasible and acceptable method for studying continuous measures of helpfulness and their psychological correlates during a single therapy session.