Immediate Effects of a 16-Week Life Skills Education Program on the Mental Health of Adult Psychiatric Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A total of 206 (105 men, 101 women) adult psychiatric patients participated in life skills programming 5 half days per week for 16 weeks. Psychosocial adjustment was assessed pre- and post-treatment with the three primary scales of the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory (HPSI). A multivariate pre- versus post-treatment analysis resulted in a nonsignificant effect for the covariate age (p= .136) but significant effects for time (p<.0005), gender (p<.0005), and the time by gender interaction (p= .003). Depression Symptomatology improved significantly for both men and women, whereas on the other two HPSI scales (Psychiatric and Social Symptomatology) statistically significant improvements were only obtained for women. The Social Symptomatology effect size for women (.25) was small and of the same order of magnitude as a treatment as usual psychiatric patient control sample and is therefore primarily a retesting effect. The effect sizes for Depression Symptomatology for men and women (.77 and .87, respectively) and Psychiatric Symptomatology for women (.57) were large and at least four times larger than the control sample. Improvement in Depression Symptomatology has considerable support in the literature but improvement in Psychiatric Symptomatology does not and will therefore require replication. Key Words: Life skillspre-post designspsychiatric patientsypsychosocial adjustmentytreatment effectiveness
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".