Qualitative Reflections: CASA's Trauma and Attachment Group (TAG) Program for Youth who have Experienced Early Developmental Trauma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We demonstrated previously that the Trauma and Attachment Group (TAG) program for youth in middle childhood significantly improved caregiver/child attachment relationships, reduced children's symptoms of attachment trauma, and increased the caregiver's ability for self-reflection. Here we examine the perspectives of both those administering and those taking part in this intensive dyad-based group intervention. METHODS: Utilizing an ethnographic design we collected and analyzed qualitative data obtained through a focus group and interviews with program facilitators, as well as interviews with participating caregivers. Data were collected from six TAG facilitators through a formal focus group interview (n=4), and informal interviews with TAG facilitators unable to attend the focus group (n=2). Four interviews were also carried out with caregivers (three females and one male). Thematic analysis of the focus group and interview transcripts was conducted. RESULTS: Three key themes were identified in the focus group and interview data: Relationship as locus of change, Group process, and Psychoeducation-based content. That the TAG program provides psychoeducation about the effects of trauma to caregiver/child dyads in a group setting appears important in supporting the effectiveness of the program. Structured parent-child play and sensory activities together ("kit-time") were also highly valued. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study suggests that establishment of a healthy and focused caregiver/child relationship may be the key mechanism to promoting change in relationships that have been challenged by adverse effects of early developmental trauma. Further evaluation may help to identify other components that contribute to the success of the program.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".