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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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

ABSTRACT 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. Keywords: disabilitiesdyslexiareading

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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