The relationship between coping styles and affective/behavioural symptoms among individuals with an acquired brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of combined Axis I and II emotional profiles, demographic and psychosocial variables on coping responses in an Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) population using the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and the Coping Response Inventory (CRI). RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a retrospective study examining the relationship between coping styles with affective, demographic and psychosocial variables using a multi-dimensional profile analysis. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Participants completed the PAI and CRI during a regular clinical visit at the ABI Program (n = 100). Profile data was divided into seven established sub-types and analysed with coping responses. Traumatic (TBI; n = 78) and non-traumatic (n = 24) brain-injured individuals comprised the sample. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Previous findings were confirmed showing that highly symptomatic patients primarily use negative coping strategies. Also, affective symptoms, gender, relationship status, perceived stress and psychosocial supports mediate the use of different negative coping responses. Interesting, anxiety-based symptoms were associated with positive responses similar to asymptomatic ABI patients. CONCLUSIONS: Coping strategies adopted by brain-injured individuals are mediated by Axis I and II symptoms as well as psychosocial support, stress, marital status and gender. As a result, this has implications for developing treatment strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".