The independent roles of mindfulness and distress tolerance in treatment outcomes in dialectical behavior therapy skills training.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite research supporting the effectiveness of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) for borderline personality disorder (BPD), few studies have examined how DBT leads to clinical change. DBT is theorized to lead to improved clinical outcomes by enhancing the capacity for emotion regulation, including improvement in skills (e.g., mindfulness and distress tolerance) for managing emotional distress and impulsive behaviors. Therefore, the aim of this study was to test whether improvements in mindfulness and distress tolerance indirectly affect the relationship between DBT skills training and clinical outcomes. The sample consists of 84 patients diagnosed with BPD who were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing 20 weeks of DBT-skills group (DBT-S) to an active waitlist control. Mindfulness and distress tolerance were assessed at baseline and at the end of the 20 weeks. BPD symptoms, general psychiatric symptoms, and social adjustment were assessed at the end of 20 weeks and combined into a latent variable representing a broad assessment of general psychopathology. Relative to the waitlist control group, improvements in mindfulness and distress tolerance each independently indirectly affected the relationship between DBT-S and posttreatment general psychopathology. Findings suggest that DBT-S exerts its effects on outcomes through improvements in mindfulness and distress tolerance. These findings support the significance of mindfulness and distress tolerance in DBT-S for BPD. Limitations, future directions, and clinical implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".