The Effectiveness of Group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Cognitive Therapy on Alexithymia and Marital Boredom, Case study: Women Affected by Marital Infidelity in Mashhad, Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of current paper was to compare the effectiveness of acceptance and commitment group therapy (ACT) and group cognitive therapy (GCT) on Alexithymia and marital boredom (MB) among women affected by marital infidelity in Mashhad. Method: This clinical trial was a double- blind study with a pretest-posttest design in which two intervention groups and one control group were investigated. The study performed on women who realized their spouse infidelity and referred to Azad University Counseling Center in Mashhad in 2018. The sample consisted of 30 women who were selected by purposive sampling and were randomly assigned to two intervention groups and a control group (n=10 per group). The intervention groups were put under ACT training (twelve 90-minute sessions) and GCT training (twelve 90-minute sessions), but the control group did not receive any intervention. Data was obtained by the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 and Pines Marital Boredom Scale and was analyzed by multivariate analysis of covariance with SPSS (version 22) software. Results: The results showed a significant reduction in the mean score of MB in the ACT group, also there was a significant reduction in the mean score of Alexithymia in the GCT group (P <0.05). So comparing both therapies, ACT was more influential on reducing marital boredom whereas GCT was more effective on reducing alexithymia. Conclusion: Although both intervention methods were effective on Alexithymia and Marital Boredom in women affected by marital infidelity, it was demonstrated that ACT and GCT have more effect on Marital Boredom and Alexithymia, respectively.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".