Adolescents' Perspectives on Strengths-Based Group Work and Group Cohesion in Residential Treatment for Substance Abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is common to conduct treatments for adolescent substance abuse within a group format. Because previous research has identified group cohesion as being an important factor in adolescent substance abuse group treatment outcomes, it is important to examine therapeutic strategies that could help facilitate the development of group cohesion within substance abuse treatment programs for adolescents. The purpose of this study was to examine adolescents' perspectives on the contribution of a strengths-based orientation to the development of group cohesion. Following a 5-week strengths-based residential treatment program for substance abuse in Canada, 36 adolescents agreed to participate in an open-ended interview about their perceptions of how a strengths-based approach might have influenced group cohesion. Thematic analysis was used to identify common themes across participant responses. Findings suggest that working from a strengths-based perspective could help facilitate the development of several aspects of group cohesion. Implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed. Keywords: adolescencegroup cohesionposttreatment interviewsqualitative researchresidential treatment in Canadastrengths perspectivesubstance abuse treatment
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".