MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053898567 · doi:10.1080/00220670903383127

Solution-Focused Brief Therapy: Impacts on Academic and Emotional Difficulties

2010· article· en· W2053898567 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Daki, Robert Savage

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Educational Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioemotional selectivity theorySolution focused brief therapyIntervention (counseling)PsychologyRandomized controlled trialTreatment and control groupsClinical psychologyPsychotherapistSample size determinationControl (management)Developmental psychologyMedicineMathematicsStatisticsPsychiatryComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This randomized control trial study evaluated the effectiveness of the solution-focused approach in addressing academic, motivational, and socioemotional needs of 14 children with reading difficulties. The intervention group received five 40-min solution-focused sessions. The control group received academic homework support. Results showed advantages for the intervention condition in 26 out of 38 measures. The mean eta-squared effect size for intervention was .20 (very) large. For the control group, there were only 10 effects favoring it and the mean was .09, a medium sized effect, both significantly greater than 0 (p < .01). Comparisons of the solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) effect sizes to the mean of the control showed it was significantly larger (p < .001), confirming that SFBT was an efficacious intervention in this sample.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations63
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207