Evaluation of a Children's Temper-Taming Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a group cognitive-behavioural therapy program in reducing anger and aggressive behaviour in children. METHOD: Study participants were 68 children aged 7 to 13 years and their parents. A total of 12 groups were run at an outpatient children's mental health centre. The children were referred to the groups by their clinician for assistance in reducing their aggressive behaviour. We obtained quantitative information on the effectiveness of the group from the children and their parents, who completed questionnaires before the first session and after the last session. The children completed the Children's Inventory of Anger (CIA), and the parents completed the Children's Hostility Inventory (CHI). We used t tests and analyses of covariance to test for posttreatment differences. RESULTS: Results were available for 56 children. At posttreatment, children reported that the intensity of their anger had decreased (CIA, t41 = 4.39, P < 0.0001), and parents indicated a reduction in the frequency of aggression (CHI-Aggression, t44 = 2.82, P < 0.01) and hostility (CHI-Hostility, t44 = 4.93, P < 0.0001) in their children. CONCLUSIONS: The group program appeared to reduce children's anger and aggression. However, the results are preliminary, and further controlled evaluation is required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".