Featured Article: Interpersonal Stressors and Resources as Predictors of Adolescent Adjustment Following Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The present study sought to examine adolescents' perceptions of their interpersonal stressors and resources across parent, sibling, friend, and school relationships, and the longitudinal associations with self-reported adjustment after traumatic brain injury (TBI) over a 12-month period. Methods: We examined the main effects of stressors and resources on internalizing and externalizing symptoms in 152 adolescents who had sustained complicated mild-to-severe TBI. We also investigated the conjoint effects of stressors and resources and the moderating effects of TBI severity with stressors and resources on outcomes. Results: High stressors consistently predicted worse adjustment. High resources were generally only associated with fewer internalizing symptoms. Main effects were qualified by interactions between school stressors and resources in predicting externalizing symptoms and between friend stressors and resources in predicting internalizing and externalizing symptoms. For school stressors, the effects of resources on externalizing symptoms functioned as a buffer. In comparison, the buffering effects of friend resources on internalizing and externalizing symptoms disappeared at moderate-to-high levels of friend stress. Moderating effects of TBI severity were also observed, such that as family resources increased, only adolescents with complicated mild-to-moderate TBI, but not those with severe TBI, experienced decreases in internalizing and eternalizing symptoms. Conclusion: Interpersonal stressors and social support have important implications for adolescent adjustment after TBI. Adolescents with low levels of school resources, with high levels of friend stress, and who sustain severe TBI are at greatest risk for difficulties with adjustment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".