MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3027542273

Preliminary Investigation of a Novel Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Curriculum on the Wellbeing of Middle Schoolers.

2020· article· en· W3027542273 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Sinyor, Donaleen Doucette Hawes, Neil A. Rector, Amy Cheung, Marissa Williams, Christian P. Cheung, Benjamin I. Goldstein, Mark Fefergrad, Anthony Levitt, Ayal Schaffer

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversityUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumInterimPsychological interventionAnxietyRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)CognitionPsychologyClinical psychologyDepression (economics)MedicinePsychiatryPedagogy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: A number of school-based interventions for preventing and attenuating symptoms of anxiety and depression in youth have been developed worldwide but evidence of their effectiveness is mixed. None of these curricula stem from existing children's literature, however, the Harry Potter (HP) series has been identified as potentially imparting Cognitive Behavioural Therapy concepts. METHODS: This study aimed to broadly capture, at an interim stage, the feasibility of a pilot HP curriculum aimed at imparting CBT skills to middle-schoolers in order to inform full development of the curriculum. The study design further included a non-randomized, Group (HP; Control) by Time (Baseline, Post-Intervention, Follow-up) mixed factorial approach retrospectively examining change in scores on a "Well-Being and Resiliency Survey" (WBRS) which assessed multiple symptomatic and social domains. RESULTS: In total, 232 grade seven and eight students participated in the curriculum over two years with no dropouts. Compared to 362 controls, there were no significant differences in WBRS scores between groups at post or one-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of rapid and broad implementation of the intervention. Preliminary analyses showed no indication of effectiveness which may be the product of the intervention being in an interim stage during the study period and/or the retrospective design and limitations in data quality. Specifically, these results suggest that the WBRS may be a suboptimal instrument for measuring the effectiveness of this intervention. A prospective trial of the complete, revised curriculum with validated measures is required to provide an adequately assessment of its impact.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development→French-language works237,207→