Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychosocial interventions often aim to alleviate negative emotional states. There is a growing interest in cultivating positive emotional states and qualities. Few studies have been done in a pediatric population, but results were inconclusive. We now know that the relation that children have with others, especially with their families, makes them happy. To test the effect of a family-centered positive psychology intervention on subjective well-being of children. A randomized controlled trial of a community sample of children and their family. Participants were assigned to a one-week family-centered positive psychology intervention (PPI), a control literacy intervention (CPS Read, speak, sing program) or a wait list control. The PPI consisted of a ‘Gratitude visit’ (children were given one week to write and then deliver a letter of gratitude in person to someone who had been especially kind to them but had never been properly thanked) and ‘Three good things in life’ (participants were asked to write down three things that went well each day and their causes every night for one week. In addition they were asked to provide a causal explanation for each good thing and discuss it with their family). Participants completed self-reported inventories that measured happiness (Subjective Happiness Scale [SHL] and Student's Life Satisfaction Scale [SLSS]) and gratitude (Gratitude Adjectives Checklist(GAC)) pre-intervention, post-intervention and one month. A total of 24 children (14 girls [52%]; mean (± SD) age 10±2 years) and their family were randomly assigned to PPI (n=7), literacy intervention (n=10) or wait list control (n=7). Well-being increased significantly for the PPI group at post- and follow-up assessment on the SHL and the SLSS compared to the control or wait list group. Parents happiness (SHL) and life satisfaction increased significantly in the the PPI compared to the literacy or wait list group. No significant changes were detected on the GAC but the PPI group showed more positive emotions (optimism and enthousiasm). The perception that parents had of their child's happiness was increased in the PPI and the literacy groups at post-assessment, and at the one-month follow-up in the PPI group. A family-centered intervention based on promoting positive emotions and well-being was effective not only in increasing psychological well-being of children but also their parents. These findings may have important implications for mental health and well-being.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.002 |
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".