Posttraumatic stress disorder and intimate relationship problems: A meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a meta-analysis of empirical studies investigating associations between indices of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and intimate relationship problems to empirically synthesize this literature. METHOD: A literature search using PsycINFO, Medline, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress (PILOTS), and Dissertation Abstracts was performed. The authors identified 31 studies meeting inclusion criteria. RESULTS: True score correlations (ρ) revealed medium-sized associations between PTSD and intimate relationship discord (ρ = .38, N = 7,973, K = 21), intimate relationship physical aggression perpetration (ρ = .42, N = 4,630, K = 19), and intimate relationship psychological aggression perpetration (ρ = .36, N = 1,501, K = 10). The strength of the association between PTSD and relationship discord was higher in military (vs. civilian) samples, and when the study was conducted in the United States (vs. other country), and the study represented a doctoral dissertation (vs. published article). The strength of the association between PTSD and physical aggression was higher in military (vs. civilian) samples, males (vs. females), community (vs. clinical) samples, studies examining PTSD symptom severity (vs. diagnosis), when the physical aggression measure focused exclusively on severe violence (vs. a more inclusive measure), and the study was published (vs. dissertation). For the PTSD-psychological aggression association, 98% of the variance was accounted for by methodological artifacts such as sampling and measurement error; consequently, no moderators were examined in this relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight a need for the examination of models explaining the relationship difficulties associated with PTSD symptomatology and interventions designed to treat problems in both areas.
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 | 0.024 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".