Measuring and understanding “quality of life” among emerging adults in a substance use program.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This work focuses on understanding quality of life and evaluating a brief quality of life measure in an outpatient emerging adult (17-25 years of age) substance use program. METHOD: = 100) and (b) qualitative interviews with 12 emerging adults in the program. The study was codesigned, cofacilitated, and cointerpreted with emerging adults with lived experience. RESULTS: < .001) at the ∼12-week follow-up demonstrating program effects and sensitivity to change. Factor analysis suggested unidimensionality of the measure and internal consistency was high (ω = 0.81). MLT scores correlated in expected directions with other measures of quality of life, functioning, and mental health symptoms and demonstrated incremental validity in explaining variability in these measures over and above World Health Organization quality of life items. Emerging adults thought the five items (i.e., general well-being, day-to-day activities, relationships with friends, relationships with family, coping) generally captured the most important aspects of quality of life to them and had positive impressions regarding the use of this measure for measurement-based care. Other important aspects of quality of life included feeling a sense of meaning, purpose, motivation, and independence. CONCLUSION: Overall, the MLT demonstrated evidence of psychometric and content validity among emerging adults in substance use treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".