Review of Cognitive-behavioral therapies for trauma (2nd Edition).
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
VICTORIA. M. FOLLETTE and JOSEF. I. RUZEK (Eds.) Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies for Trauma (2nd Edition) The Guilford Press, 2006, 472 pages (ISBN: 9781593852474, US$48.00 Hardcover) Reviewed by R. NICHOLAS CARLETON and GORDON J. G. ASMUNDSON This humbly titled text actually provides exhaustive coverage of several important trauma-related areas. As suggested by the book cover, this second edition seems to go beyond updated references and leading-edge changes. The book does indeed appear to be a radical revision without departing from the core intent, which was to provide a one-stop shop for practitioners working with trauma survivors. Functioning more as a compendium than a standard text, this book acts as a single resource for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In appropriate fashion, a historical review serves to contextualize the subsequent sections and associated chapters. The majority of the book is then divided into three sections: Assessment, Interventions, and Specialized Populations and Delivery Considerations. The final chapter serves as direction for the future of applied cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in several diverse settings. At the outset of the text, there is a brief history of labels for psychological sequelae in the aftermath of trauma. The history includes a review of the changing diagnostic criteria leading up to the most recent Fourth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). These discussions provide necessary insight into the diversity and complexity of traumatic responses. Furthermore, Monson and Friedman also review the current suggestions for the future of PTSD. For example, should the avoidance and numbing symptoms be divided into separate clusters? Should Acute Stress Disorder (ASD) remain distinct? In light of the mood-related changes associated with PTSD, should it be classified as an anxiety disorder? In doing so, the review provides a timely and informative look at what may be a change for the next iteration of the DSM. The appropriately tided first section of the book, Assessment, spans only two chapters. The first of these, by Follette and Naugle, provides a broad, over-arching social and environmental context for understanding responses to trauma. This includes the survivor's perception of the traumatic event during and after - and the immediate social consequences. There is a particular focus on the social fallout associated with trauma-related avoidance and numbing. Although interesting and very applicable, the theoretical bases for Chapter Two are quite dense for an introduction to assessment. Some readers may prefer to begin with Chapter Three instead, and then return to Chapter Two. Chapter Three is very well written, easy to understand, and offers a wealth of quick reference information for readers. Pratt et al. cover current adult assessment strategies, the development of assessment for PTSD, and provide sound methodology for comparing assessment tools. Moreover, Chapter Three contains a comprehensive review of clinician-administered and selfreport measures for assessing PTSD. Given the thorough nature of the book, it was surprising that an assessment chapter dedicated to children was not included; hopefully, it will appear in a future edition. The second section of the book, Interventions, functions as a compendium of current CBT techniques for trauma. A significant strength of several Interventions chapters is the provision of similar content areas presented in a consistent format; the authors begin with an introduction to the specific CBT operand and then provide theoretical foundations for the therapy. Thereafter, reviews of recent stuthes supporting treatment utility are provided, along with caveats for use (e.g., which populations are to be best served by the therapy). Many chapters delineate the therapy in a session-by-session format, providing the reader with a clear picture of how treatment is likely to proceed. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,010 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».