Collaborative Problem Solving reduces children's emotional and behavioral difficulties and parenting stress: Two key mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) approach in home-based family therapy and to explore two hypothesized mechanisms of change. METHOD: Sixty-seven families with children aged 3-12 years old completed a 12-week home-based CPS treatment program. Parent-report measures were completed pre- and post-intervention, including measures on parents' fidelity of using CPS, parents' empathy, children's executive functioning, children's behavioral difficulties, and parenting stress. RESULTS: There were significant reductions in children's behavioral difficulties and parenting stress, and significant improvements in children's executive functioning and parents' empathy. These improvements were greatest for parents who had the greatest fidelity to CPS. Improvements in children's executive functioning and parents' empathy mediated the relationship between parents' CPS fidelity and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence that home-based family treatment with CPS may achieve positive child and family outcomes by building children's executive function skills and improving parents' empathy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".