Psychological resilience predicts depressive symptoms among spouses of persons with Alzheimer disease over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the three facets of psychological resilience (i.e., perceived control, commitment to living, challenge versus stability) as predictors of depressive symptoms over time among spousal caregivers of persons with Alzheimer disease; these resilience factors were considered over and above dementia-related and socio-demographic control variables. A sample of 105 cohabiting spouses of persons diagnosed with probable or possible Alzheimer disease was recruited for this study. Multilevel modeling enabled us to examine baseline resilience, and the direction and magnitude of change in resilience over time, as distinct predictors of depressive symptoms one year later, and change in depressive symptoms between points of measurement. Both Time 1 control and challenge predicted lower levels of depressive symptoms one year later; furthermore, an increase in challenge over this interval predicted lower Time 2 depressive symptoms. In contrast, commitment did not emerge as a statistically significant predictor of caregiver depression. Findings of this study provide general support for the stress process model of caregiving; in particular, the central role of intra-psychic factors as significant predictors of depressive symptoms over time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".