A Comparison of Communication Skills, Psychological Well-being, and Alexithymia between Female Applicants and Non-applicants of Divorce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Aims: The most common problem of unsatisfied couples is failure in communication skills and the ability to control emotions. Psychological well-being is one of the most important success factors in marital life. The aim of this study was to compare communication skills, psychological well-being, and alexithymia between female applicants and non-applicants of divorce in Tabriz, Iran. Methods: This was a causal–comparative study. The study population consisted of all 18-30-year-old married women who had applied for a divorce and all 18-30-year-old married women of Tabriz. For this purpose, 200 women (2 groups of 100 applicants and non-applicants of divorce) were selected through multistage random and convenience sampling. Data were collected using Barton’s Communication Skills Questionnaire, Ryff’s Psychological Well-being Scale, and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis of variance test. Results: There was a significant difference between the two groups of women in terms of communication skills, psychological well-being, and alexithymia. This means that communication skills and psychological well-being was lower and alexithymia was higher among the applicants for divorce. Conclusion: The results showed that in order to strengthen couples’ relationships and the foundation of families, and thus, to prevent the phenomenon of divorce and its consequences, the promotion of premarital counseling and providing families with appropriate information is essential.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".