Social adjustment and repressive adaptive style in survivors of pediatric cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the study was to explore the relationship between repressive adaptive style and self-reports of social adjustment in survivors of pediatric cancer compared to their siblings. We hypothesized that there would be a greater proportion of repressors among survivors of pediatric cancer compared to siblings, and that repressive adaptive style would be significantly associated with more positive self-reports of social adjustment. Methods: We utilized a cross-sectional approach. Seventy-seven families participated. Survivors of pediatric cancer (n = 77, 48% male; 8–18 years of age) and one sibling (n = 50, 48% male; 8–18 years of age) completed measures assessing repressive adaptive style and social adjustment. As well, one parent from each family completed a socio-demographic questionnaire. Questionnaire packages were mailed to eligible families who agreed to participate, and were mailed back to investigators in a pre-addressed, pre-stamped envelope. Results: Chi-square analyses revealed there was no significant difference in the proportion of repressors among survivors and siblings. Social adjustment scores were subjected to a two (group: survivor, sibling) by two (repressor, nonrepressor) ANCOVA with gender and age as covariates. There was a significant main effect of repressive adaptive style (F = 5.69, p < .05, η2 = 0.05) with a modest effect. Survivors and siblings with a repressive style reported significantly higher social adjustment scores (M = 106.91, SD = 11.69) compared to nonrepressors (M = 99.57, SD = 13.45). Conclusions: Repressive adaptive style explains some of the variance in survivors and siblings' self-reports of social adjustment. Future research should aim to better understand the role of the repressive adaptive style in survivors and siblings of children with cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".