Exploring the effects of group therapy for the visually impaired
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with visual impairments may experience varying levels of stress due to their vision loss. This study investigated the effectiveness of a brief stress management group therapy intervention for visually impaired individuals. The measure for evaluating participants’ stress levels was the Calgary Symptoms of Stress Inventory (C-SOSI), and overall well-being was measured via the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS). The study evaluated 36 participants, all experiencing varying levels of vision loss, recruited from a regional vision rehabilitation center. Approximately half of the participants were men (16) and half were women (20). The mean age of participants was 48.2 years (standard deviation [ SD] = 12.9 years). This was a predominately African American sample (72%). The C-SOSI was administered before and after participation in an 8-week stress management group. The ORS was administered at every session. Well-being was significantly increased during the first round of the intervention ( p = .02). No statistically significant decreases for stress during the first round of the intervention were observed. Those that enrolled in the intervention for a second round of treatment had a significant decrease for stress ( p = .001), but not for well-being. Overall, hypotheses were partially supported. Stress scores decreased during both rounds of the intervention; a significant reduction in stress scores was found for those individuals in the second round of the intervention. Well-being also increased during both rounds of the intervention; a significant increase was found only for the first round of the intervention. These results may suggest that individuals need approximately 16 weeks of the intervention to experience significant reductions in their stress levels. The results and implications of the current treatment protocol 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".