Effectiveness of Systemic-Constructivist Couple Therapy on Alexithymia and Differentiation of Self among Women Hurt by Infidelity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aims at investigating the effectiveness of Systemic-Constructivist Couple Therapy (SCCT) on alexithymia and differentiation of self among women hurt by infidelity. The current study used quasi-experimental research method as well as pretest-posttest and control group. The statistical population included all infidelity hurt women referred to Counseling and Psychotherapy Center of Sirjan in 2018 which 30 women selected among them by goal-oriented sampling method (inclusion and exclusion criteria) and appointed into two experimental (15) and control (15) groups. Systemic-Constructivist Couple Therapy approach applied on experimental group in nine 2-hour sessions, two sessions a week; control group placed in waiting list. In order collect data Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS) (1994) by Bagby and others and Differentiation of Self Inventory (DSI) (1982) by Skowron and Friedlander used in two pretest and posttest stages. Data analyzed by means of multivariate covariance analysis test. The findings of the study revealed that by controlling pretest effect, there is significant difference between experimental and control group in pretest mean scores regarding alexithymia and differentiation of self variables. Accruing to the result of the present study it is concluded that Systemic-Constructivist Couple Therapy influence on alexithymia reduction and differentiation of self increase as an effective interference among women hurt by infidelity.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".