Congruence couple therapy for alcohol use and gambling disorders with comorbidities (part II): Targeted areas and mechanisms of change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study of change mechanisms is important to advance theory development and to reveal the active components that make a critical difference in treatment. Improved outcomes in a randomized controlled trial that favored Congruence Couple Therapy (CCT) vs individual-based Treatment-as-Usual (TAU) were correlated within each group. Partial correlations were used to test for mediation effects. The aggregate correlation coefficient of improved variables in addiction and mental health, couple adjustment, emotion regulation (ER) and life stress was moderate for CCT and weak for TAU. CCT showed greater number of mediating effects among improved variables than TAU. The prominence of the process mechanism of improved ER with its mediating effects for addiction and psychiatric symptoms evidenced in both groups is noteworthy, but ER improvement was significantly associated with improved couple adjustment only in CCT. Reduction in life stress in CCT was associated with a broader range of improvements in CCT compared to TAU. Correlation patterns were substantiated by CCT participants' endorsement of treatment targets emphasizing relationship, communication, emotion, problem solving, addiction and intergenerational issues of trauma. TAU participants reported significantly lower endorsements for these treatment targets. The correlation of ER and couple adjustment suggested as a key process mechanism should be further elucidated in future studies to differentiate relationship-based vs individual-based models and their respective outcomes for primary clients and partners. These findings are considered preliminary, requiring larger samples and advanced modelling among variables to provide a more profound mechanism analysis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".