Effectiveness of Online Positive Psychology Intervention on Psychological Well-Being Among Undergraduate Students
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
Positive psychology intervention is mediation that aims to promote quality of life and well-being. Current research integrating positive psychology with the Internet is called online positive psychology (OPP) which promotes and prevents mental health problems, improves well-being, and reduces depression. This experimental research aimed 1) to compare the psychological well-being of the experimental group that received online positive psychology intervention in the phase of pre-test, post-test, and follow up and 2) to compare the psychological well-being between the experimental group and the controlled group. The subjects were 24 undergraduate students from Mahasarakham University, Thailand, selected by purposive sampling. Thereafter, the subjects were equally divided into experimental and controlled groups. Measures used in this study were as follows: 1) the online positive psychology intervention to improve psychological well-being and 2) the scale of psychological well-being based on Ryff’s psychological well-being. The statistics used in the data analysis were the Friedman Test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the Mann Whitney U Test. The results of the pre-test and the post-test showed that the mean scores of psychological well-being of the experimental group were significantly different at 0.05 levels. Additionally, the mean scores of psychological well-being between the experimental group and the controlled group in the phases of post-test and follow-up were significantly different at 0.05 levels. The online positive psychology intervention was effective in increasing the psychological well-being of undergraduate students.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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