The efficacy of a dialectical behavior therapy-based journal-writing group with inpatient adolescent females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether a dialectical behavior therapy (DBT)-based journal-writing group is effective at increasing the emotion regulation abilities and decreasing depression and suicidal ideation in a sample of inpatient adolescent females. METHOD: Forty inpatient adolescent females completed surveys of emotion regulation, depression, and suicidal ideation (Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), & Suicide Probability Scale (SPS)) at pre- and post-intervention. Twenty-one adolescent females participated in the DBT-based journal-writing experimental group and nineteen adolescent females participated in the treatment as usual control group. RESULTS: Participants in the experimental group reported significant decreases in suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms and significant increases in emotion regulation abilities (BDI: t = 4.3, p = .000, DERS: t = 2.9, p = .009, TAS-20: t = 2.0, p = .058, SPS: z = -1.9, p = .053), whereas participants in the control group did not report significant change (BDI: t = 1.3, p = .198, TAS-20: t = 0.5, p = .649, DERS: t = 1.4, p = .187, SPS: z = -.1, p = .887). When changes in pre- to post-test scores were compared between the control group and the experimental group, significant results were found only for the BDI (t = -2.5, p = .019). CONCLUSION: A DBT-based journal-writing group is an effective way to decrease depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation and increase emotion regulation abilities in inpatient adolescent females and can be used in the future as a means to maximize treatment gains for adolescents on inpatient units.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".