Brief report: A qualitative evidence synthesis of the psychological processes of school‐based expressive writing interventions with adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Expressive writing interventions consist of brief writing sessions on thoughts and emotions and are known to yield positive benefits on adolescents' mental health. However, the psychological mechanisms explaining these effects are not clear. METHOD: This review explored the psychological processes underlying school-based expressive writing interventions with adolescents. A thematic synthesis of qualitative research consisted of identifying, appraising and summarizing the qualitative evidence of eligible studies. RESULTS: Only six of the 510 identified studies met the inclusion criteria of this review. Results provide some validation for cognitive-processing, emotion-regulation, and disinhibition as psychological mechanisms underlying school-based expressive writing with adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: However, these conclusions are still preliminary because of the paucity of the qualitative evidence found, both in quantity and quality. We recommend that more rigorous and in-depth qualitative research be undertaken to: 1) explore adolescents' subjective experience about the expressive writing intervention, using in-depth individual interviews; 2) thoroughly assess the content of students' texts written during the intervention; and 3) document the process of expressive writing interventions through observational methods. The results of such investigations would support the development and implementation of school-based expressive writing-type of interventions adapted to adolescents.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".