Comparison of the effectiveness of compassion-focused therapy and reality therapy on alexithymia among male prisoner clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Various studies have confirmed the effectiveness of compassion-focused therapy and reality therapy on improving mental health indices among clients with different problems, but no study has compared the effectiveness of compassion-focused therapy and reality therapy on alexithymia among male prisoner clients. Aims: The present research was conducted by the aim of comparing the effectiveness of compassion-focused therapy and reality therapy on alexithymia among male prisoner client. Method: The current research was a semi-experimental study which was conducted through a pretest-posttest with control group design. The research population included all the male prisoner clients in Aligoodarz city, Iran, in 2019 who were totally 209 individuals. The sample included 45 prisoners who were selected by purposeful sampling method and were assigned into three groups including two experiment groups and one control group (15 subjects per group) ny random assignment method. The research tool was Toronto Alexithymia Scale of Bagby, Parker and Taylor (1994). The first experiment group received the compassion-focused therapy (Gilbert, 2010; 2014) and the second experiment group received reality therapy (Wubbolding, 2013) both in eight 90-minute sessions. The control group received no intervention until the end of the research. The univariate analysis of covariance and the Bonferroni ad hoc test were used to analyze the data. Results: Results suggested that both therapeutic interventions were effective on improving alexithymia in the experiment groups (p< 0/01). Moreover, there was no significant difference between compassion-focused therapy and reality therapy and both had similar effectiveness (p> 0/05). Conclusions: The results of the present research provide an appropriate empirical support for compassion-focused therapy and reality therapy. Psychologists and counselors working in prisons are recommended to use these two approaches for enhancing mental health among prisoners.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".