Predicting program retention in a flexibly-delivered relationship education program for low-income, unmarried parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participation rates in couple relationship education (CRE) programs for low-income couples are typically low. We examined predictors of session attendance and early dropout (i.e., dropout after 1 session) among a sample of low-income, unmarried parents of a newborn (N = 467 couples) enrolled in an evidence-based CRE program. Predictors included demographics and socioeconomic status, as well as baseline indicators of relationship commitment, family and individual functioning, infant health, preventive health care utilization, and CRE coach perceptions of participant engagement and alliance in the first session of the program. Couples attended an average of 4.4 (SD = 2.5) of the 7 sessions, with nearly a quarter of couples dropping out after the first session. Attendance at fewer sessions was predicted by younger age. Early dropout was predicted by lower ratings of females’ engagement and both partners’ therapeutic alliance and, unexpectedly, by commitment. We discuss considerations for engaging low-income couples in CRE.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".