MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043363987 · doi:10.1111/jcap.12285

An investigation of the effect of the psychoeducation program provided to alexithymic and violent adolescents on the level of alexithymia

2020· article· en· W3043363987 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ayşe Berivan Bakan, Gülpınar Aslan, Pınar Aka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychoeducationToronto Alexithymia ScaleFeelingPsychologyClinical psychologyArousalPsychiatryIntervention (counseling)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PROBLEM: Alexithymia is defined as difficulties in defining and describing feelings, differentiating feelings and bodily sensations caused by emotional arousal, and a combination of constricted imaginary processes. This study aims to investigate the effect of the psychoeducation program provided to individuals with alexithymia and violent tendencies adolescents on the level of alexithymia. METHODS: This experimental study was conducted between February 2019 and April 2019. The sample was 80 volunteer adolescents (experimental group n = 40 and control group n = 40) who met the research criteria. Data were collected using the Sociodemographic Form, the Tendency to Violence Scale, and the Alexithymia Questionnaire for Children (AQC). The psychoeducation program was applied in the experimental group in 90-min sessions once a week throughout 9 weeks. FINDINGS: There was a statistically significant decrease in the AQC posttest mean scores after the training provided to the experimental group (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The psychoeducation provided to adolescents was found to reduce the level of alexithymia. It is recommended that similar studies should be conducted with larger groups.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric NursingSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207