The Effectivenss of Emotional Freedom Technique on Improving Alexithymia and Negative Mood in Woment with Trait-State Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim and Background: Emotional freedom technique (EFT) is one of the new therapies that can have a positive effect on emotional mood and mood swings with its positive effects on the physiology of the brain. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of emotional freedom technique (EFT) training on improving emotional malaise and negative mood in women with mood-trait anxiety. Methods and Materials: The design of the present study was a single case study of an experimental design. The statistical population of the present study was all women with trait anxiety who referred to counseling centers in Isfahan in the summer and fall of 1399, of which 3 had the criteria of trait-trait anxiety and in terms of entry and exit criteria and other characteristics. In terms of education, age, and economic and social status, they were similar; were chosen. Subjects answered the Toronto Alexithymia Questionnaire, Anxiety, Depression and Stress (DASS-21) and the Mental Disorders Checklist (SCL90). Then, the experimental group received 10 sessions of 90 minutes of emotional freedom technique training, while the control group did not receive any training. Data were analyzed using intra-situational and inter-situational analysis to analyze the effectiveness of the independent variable (EFT intervention) on dependent variables (emotional malaise and negative mood). Findings: The results showed that emotional freedom technique improved emotional malaise (alexithymia) and negative mood in women with trait anxietyHas been significantly effective (p<0.01). Conclusions: Based on the results of the present study, it can be said that the emotional freedom technique can be used as an effective intervention option to help women with trait anxiety to reduce emotional malaise and their negative mood.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".