Actor and partner effects of PTSD and relationship functioning in a recently traumatized sample.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A robust negative association exists between self-reported posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and self-reported interpersonal relationship functioning. However, the extent to which each member of a dyad's subjective PTSD ratings influence the other's subjective relationship functioning ratings is less understood. The present study tested: (a) associations between self- and partner-PTSD severity ratings and relationship functioning ratings and (b) whether exposure to the index trauma, gender, and relationship type (i.e., intimate vs. nonintimate dyad) moderated these associations in a sample of 104 dyads of individuals with PTSD and a close significant other. Each partners' ratings of PTSD severity were uniquely and positively associated with their own (actor) and their partner's ratings of relationship conflict, but not support or depth. Gender moderated the partner effect; women's (but not men's) subjective PTSD severity were positively associated with their partners' subjective relationship conflict. There was a relationship type by actor effect interaction for relationship support, which indicated that perceptions of PTSD severity were negatively associated with each partner's perceptions of relationship support for intimate but not nonintimate dyads. Results support a dyadic conceptualization of PTSD in which both partners' perception of symptoms are important for relationship functioning. Conjoint therapies may be particularly potent for PTSD and relationship functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".