Existential Therapy for Children: Impact of a Philosophy for Children Intervention on Positive and Negative Indicators of Mental Health in Elementary School Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Philosophy for children (P4C) was initially developed in the 1970s and served as an educational program to promote critical thinking, caring, creative reasoning and inquiry in the educational environment. Quasi-experimental research on P4C, a school-based approach that aims to develop children's capacity to think by and for themselves, has suggested it could be an interesting intervention to foster greater basic psychological need satisfaction in children in school settings. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present study was to evaluate the impact of P4C on basic psychological need satisfaction and mental health in elementary school students. METHOD: = 57) took part in this study and completed pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. A randomized cluster trial with a wait-list control group was implemented to compare the effects of P4C on students' mental health. RESULTS: Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) revealed a significant effect of group condition on levels of autonomy and anxiety, after controlling for baseline levels. Participants in the experimental group showed higher scores in autonomy, when compared to participants in the control group, and participants in the experimental group showed lower anxiety scores, when compared to participants in the control group. CONCLUSION: Overall, results from this study show that P4C may be a promising intervention to foster greater autonomy in elementary school children, while also improving mental health.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".