Immediate Effects of a 16-Week Life Skills Education Program on the Mental Health of Adult Psychiatric Patients
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".