MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998873626 · doi:10.1080/07448481.2019.1705828

Processes of change within acceptance and commitment therapy for university students: Preliminary evidence from a randomized controlled trial

2020· article· en· W2998873626 on OpenAlexafffund
Laurence Morin, Simon Grégoire, Lise Lachance

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American College Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAcceptance and commitment therapyRandomized controlled trialPsychologyEvidence-based practiceBehavior changeClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyIntervention (counseling)Alternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective This randomized controlled trial examined whether KORSA workshops indirectly influence anxiety, depression and stress symptoms among university students through their effect on two second-order psychological flexibility processes: 1) mindfulness and acceptance, and 2) commitment and behavior change. Participants: During the fall 2014 and the winter 2015 semesters, 124 students participated in the study. Methods: They were randomized to either a 4-week intervention group (n = 61) or a wait-list control group (n = 63). They completed measures of anxiety, depression, stress and psychological flexibility before and immediately after the intervention. Results: Bootstrapping-based mediation analyses showed that the intervention indirectly influenced symptoms reduction through its effect on acceptance and mindfulness processes, but not through commitment and behavior change processes. Conclusions: These initial findings suggest that contact with the present moment, acceptance, cognitive defusion and self as context are important processes of change through which KORSA workshops affect the students mental health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American College HealthSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207