Differential pathways of psychological distress in spouses vs. parents of people with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI): Multi-group analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: A contemporary model of psychological stress based on an amalgamation of Conservation of Resources theory and the McMaster Model of Family Functioning was devised to compare the effects of neurobehavioural impairments on family functioning and psychological distress in spouses and parents caring for relatives with TBI. METHOD: Participants were 64 spouses and 58 parents. They completed the Neurobehavioral Problem Checklist, Family Assessment Device and the Brief Symptom Inventory. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test the model for the combined (spouses and parents) sample. Multi-group analysis was then employed for examining differences in structural weights for spouses and parents. MAIN RESULTS: SEM supported the model for the combined sample. Multi-group analysis showed for spouses cognitive and behavioural impairments significantly disrupted family functioning, which in turn increased psychological distress. In contrast, cognitive and behavioural impairments did not significantly disrupt family functioning in parents. For parents, however, cognitive impairments increased psychological distress. Furthermore, parents who reported disrupted family functioning also experienced higher levels of psychological distress. The effect of cognitive impairments was statistically more influential on the level of distress in parents when compared to spouses. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding these differences can assist in better targeting family support interventions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".