Self-efficacy as a Mechanism of Action of Imagery Rehearsal Therapy's Effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imagery rehearsal therapy (IRT) is an empirically validated therapy targeting recurring nightmares, for which the mechanisms of action remain poorly understood. The objective of this study was to investigate how an exploratory measure of self-efficacy could mediate IRT's effectiveness. Thirty-five victims of sexual assault with recurring nightmares were randomly assigned to either IRT or a control condition. Participants completed questionnaires about self-efficacy and nocturnal symptoms at pre- and posttreatment. Regression analyses showed that IRT predicted greater self-efficacy about dreams (β = .578) and that self-efficacy about dreams predicted improvement in insomnia (β = -.378). IRT also predicted greater self-efficacy about nightmares (β = .366), which in turn predicts sleep quality (β = -.412). However, self-efficacy was not a significant mediator of IRT's effectiveness on insomnia and sleep quality. Although IRT did increase patients' self-efficacy over dreams and nightmares, self-efficacy may not be a primary mechanism of action explaining IRT's effectiveness.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".