MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036183145 · doi:10.1177/000841740106800406

Clinical Outcome and Client Satisfaction of an Anger Management Group Program

2001· article· en· W2036183145 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M.‐X. Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough Hospital
FundersUniversity of Bath
KeywordsAnger managementAngerClinical psychologyMental healthPsychologyCoping (psychology)Treatment and control groupsGroup psychotherapyCognitionMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This retrospective quasi-experimental study evaluated the effectiveness of an anger management group program for clients with mental health problems. The program, based on the cognitive-behavioral approach, was offered by outpatient mental health occupational therapy services of a community general hospital. Sixty-four clients, about 59% diagnosed with depressive disorder, enrolled in the program and participated in the study. The pre-treatment and post-treatment scores of the participants on the Anger Control Inventory and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory were compared. The results indicated significant reduction in the overall experience of intense anger, improvement in cognitive and behavioural coping mechanisms, and significant improvement in anger control after treatment. Most respondents (90%) found the program definitely helpful. The pace of the program and the variety of learning activities were identified as areas for improvement. The results showed the program had positive impact on anger management. Useful suggestions were identified for continuous quality improvements of the program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.246
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207