MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163056527 · doi:10.1080/13674676.2013.780015

Mediating effects of coping in the link between spirituality and psychological distress in a culturally diverse undergraduate sample

2013· article· en· W2163056527 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ben C. H. Kuo, Robert W. Arnold, Beatriz Rodriguez-Rubio

Bibliographic record

VenueMental Health Religion & Culture · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)SpiritualityPsychologyPsychological distressDistressClinical psychologyPath analysis (statistics)Social psychologyMental healthPsychotherapistMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study sets out to examine the spirituality-coping-health link in a culturally and religiously diverse undergraduate sample (N = 301) in Canada. Specifically, this investigation: (a) assessed intrinsic spirituality with a factorially derived measure, created based on a multidimensional measure of spirituality; (b) tested the mediating role of coping in the spirituality-psychological well-being relation with a validated cross-cultural measure of coping; and (c) examined this complex, multivariate web of relationships with a path analysis. The results showed that Intrinsic Spirituality reduced Psychological Distress, promoted the use of Collective Coping, and reduced the use of Avoidance Coping. Furthermore, Engagement Coping reduced Psychological Distress while Avoidance Coping increased the distress. The findings suggest that one way in which spiritual faith and belief can act to improve individuals' psychological well-being is through promoting adaptive and culturally congruent/appropriate coping behaviours in the face of stressful situations. Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMental Health Religion & CultureSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207