Emotion regulation group skills training for adolescents and parents: A pilot study of an add-on treatment in a clinical setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Difficulties with emotion regulation have been identified as an underlying mechanism in mental health. This pilot study aimed at examining whether group skills training in emotion regulation for adolescents and parents as an add-on intervention was feasible in an outpatient child and adolescent psychiatric clinic. We also investigated if the treatment increased knowledge and awareness of emotions and their functions, increased emotion regulation skills and decreased self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression. Six skills training groups were piloted with a total of 20 adolescents and 21 adults. The treatment consisted of five sessions dealing with psychoeducation about emotions and emotion regulation skills training. Paired-samples t test was used to compare differences between before-and-after measures for adolescents and parents separately. The primary outcome measure, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, showed significant improvement after treatment for both adolescents and parents. For adolescents, measures of alexithymia were significantly reduced. Also, emotional awareness was significantly increased. Measures of depression and anxiety did not change. In conclusion, group skills training as an add-on treatment can be feasible and effective but further studies are needed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".