The Effects of Parent Management Training, Problem-solving Skills Training and the Eclectic Training on Conduct Disorder in Iranian Elementary School Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the effects of parent management training, problem-solving skills training and theeclectic training on symptoms of conduct disorder in Isfahan elementary school students during the educationalyear 2010-2011. The sample included 40 male pupils (ages 10 to 11) randomly selected assigned to experimentaland control groups. Four groups were formed (each group consisted of 10 students), namely parent managementtraining, problem-solving skills training, eclectic training and a control group. Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL,Achenbach, 1991) and clinical interview were used as research instruments. Three methods were used asintervention (parent management training, problem-solving skills training and the eclectic training).The resultsof the analysis of covariance ANCOVA with repeated measure indicated a significant difference between parentmanagement training, eclectic training and the control group, however no significant difference was observedbetween problem solving skills training group and the other groups. Scheffe post-hoc test was also used whichindicated that parent management training and eclectic training intervention decreased the conduct disordersymptoms in comparison with the control group. Also, the results indicated that eclectic training was moreeffective than parent management training.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".