MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

IMPACT OF MARITAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS ON THERAPEUTIC ALLIANCE IN COUPLES UNDERGOING COUPLE THERAPY

2005· article· en· W2040394665 on OpenAlexaff
Salima Mamodhoussen, John Wright, Nadine Tremblay, Hélène Poitras-Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marital and Family Therapy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlliancePsychologyDistressMarital TherapyClinical psychologyPsychological distressScale (ratio)PsychiatryPsychotherapistMental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we describe the psychometric properties of the Couple Therapy Alliance Scale--revised (CTAS-r) and investigates the impact of marital and psychiatric distress on alliance. Seventy-nine couples in therapy completed a French version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and of the Psychiatric Symptoms Index at session one, and a French version of the CTAS-r at session three. Results indicate that the French version of the CTAS-r has adequate psychometric properties, although the subscales of the instrument are highly intercorrelated. Furthermore, marital adjustment predicts alliance scores, whereas psychiatric symptoms do not. Finally, male marital adjustment and female psychiatric symptoms are lower in couples where spouses have divergent perceptions of the alliance. Future research directions are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations54
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marital and Family TherapySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207