Implementation and Evaluation of the Skills Training in Affective and Interpersonal Regulation (STAIR) in a Community Setting in the Context of Childhood Sexual Abuse
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this article is to describe the implementation of the Skills Training in Affective and Interpersonal Regulation (STAIR), a manualized, evidence-based cognitive behavioral group treatment for childhood trauma at Cedar Centre, a community-based trauma treatment center, and describe the preliminary evaluation of the effectiveness of the treatment. Method: Pre- and postmeasurements of emotion regulation, interpersonal problems, and traumatic stress symptoms using psychometrically validated instruments were collected. Outcomes were assessed for 85 individuals who experienced childhood sexual abuse and participated in the first cycles of intervention at the center. Results: Results indicated significant reductions in difficulties in emotion regulation, interpersonal problems, and trauma symptoms among participants from pretreatment to posttreatment. Discussion: Overall, there was a positive response to the adoption and integration of the STAIR intervention into the program. Qualitative assessment identified the benefits perceived by both facilitators and group participants.
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.
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 | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it