Therapeutic Engagement with Adolescents with Emotional and Behavioural Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the degree and quality of youth engagement in the therapeutic process, as well as the factors associated with engagement in a sample of youth with an emotional and/or behaviour disorder (EBD) in residential and day treatment programs based in Southern Ontario. Cross-sectional surveys of standardized measures were administered to youth and a separate survey to their Prime Workers. Relevant constructs included client engagement (as rated by youth and Prime Workers), and youth-rated behavioural screen, family functioning, and interpersonal problems. Both Prime Workers and youth rated youth as moderate in their level of engagement in therapy. Furthermore, Prime Worker and youth ratings did not significantly differ, suggesting that youth may have actually engaged at a moderate level. Surprisingly, significantly more day treatment youth reported having mental health diagnoses than residential treatment youth, and residential treatment youth reported low scores in conduct and hyperactivity problems. Interpersonal problems were shown to be negatively associated with youth engagement, and family functioning was approaching significance after controlling for the aforementioned differences in residential and day treatment youth. Clinicians may benefit from youth engagement evaluations in practice. In future research, consideration of sociodemographic variables, resiliency promoting factors, and emotion regulation is recommended.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".