Assessment of the Long-Term Benefits of Life Skills Programming on Psychosocial Adjustment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The durability of the psychosocial benefits of Life Skills programming on outpatient adults with mental health/forensic issues was examined. Participants were 52 adults (28 males, 24 females) who completed 16 weeks of Life Skills at a psychiatric outpatient clinic and were re-assessed between six months and six years following treatment. Psychosocial adjustment was assessed using the three scales of the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory (HPSI). Two groups of participants were compared, based on time since completion of treatment. There were no significant differences between time-based groups on the HPSI, but there was a significant gender effect for psychiatric symptoms, with females scoring higher on this scale than males (p = .028). When current HPSI scores were compared to HPSI scores that were assessed upon completion of Life Skills in a recent pre-post study on the same clientele (Reddon, Hoglin, & Woodman, 2008), analyses produced no statistically significant differences between follow-up HPSI scores and the post-treatment scores. The immediate psychosocial gains reported by Reddon et al. (2008) are evidently durable. The results of this study provide support for Life Skills as an effective treatment with persistent benefits for psychiatric outpatients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".