Caregiver maltreatment history and treatment response following an intensive Emotion Focused Family Therapy workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This single-arm, repeated measures study investigated the impact caregiver trauma history may have on treatment response following an intensive, 2-day Emotion Focused Family Therapy (EFFT) caregiver workshop. Caregivers (n = 243) completed questionnaires regarding their child's emotion regulation and clinical symptoms, as well as their own childhood trauma history (i.e., exposure to various forms of child maltreatment), caregiver self-efficacy and caregiver blocks (e.g., fears) to support their child's treatment and recovery. Questionnaires were administered prior to and immediately following the workshop and again 4, 8 and 12 months later. At baseline, caregivers who reported experiences of childhood maltreatment demonstrated more blocks compared with caregivers who did not (B = 6.35, SE = 2.62, p < 0.05). Results indicated that caregivers with and without maltreatment histories reported similar, significant gains in their child's total difficulties (B = 0.64, SE = 0.41, p = 0.12) and emotional negativity and lability (B = 0.51, SE = 0.48, p = 0.29) at 12-month post-workshop. Caregivers with maltreatment histories reported greater improvements in caregiver blocks (B = 5.15, SE = 1.34, p < 0.001) and child emotion regulation (B = 0.90, SE = 0.18, p < 0.001) than caregivers without maltreatment histories. They also report less, but still significant, improvement in parental self-efficacy (B = -0.68, SE = 0.26, p < 0.01) when compared with caregivers without maltreatment histories. Findings suggest that EFFT workshops may be an acceptable and effective trans-diagnostic intervention for families presenting with complex histories, including caregiver exposure to childhood maltreatment.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".