The Impact of Strengths-Based Assessment Education on Undergraduate Students’ Knowledge of Disorders and Mental Illness Stigma
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: While abnormal psychology courses have traditionally focused on psychopathology, there are several benefits to adopting a strengths-based approach. Objective: This study examined the teaching of a strengths-based assessment approach (the DICE-PM Model), compared to teaching as usual, in an undergraduate abnormal psychology course. Method: Two sections of an abnormal psychology course were taught a strengths-based assessment approach while two sections were taught as usual. All participants completed measures of knowledge of psychological disorders and mental illness stigma at the beginning and end of the semester. Results: Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in knowledge of disorders and a significant decrease in mental illness stigma with the exception of one category assessed (recovery), generally with small effect sizes. Those in the strengths group, compared to the control, showed a significantly greater decrease in mental illness stigma involving anxiety related to others with mental illness, though also with a small effect. Conclusion: Findings suggest strengths-based assessment education does not compromise the instruction of psychological disorders and is equivalent to a traditional abnormal psychology course in reducing mental illness stigma. Teaching Implications: Such an approach may be beneficial early in students’ education to reduce mental illness stigma and promote comprehensive assessment practices.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it