MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388106474 · doi:10.61186/jayps.4.5.76

Comparison of the effectiveness of compassionate mind-based therapy and dialectical behavior therapy on cognitive deficits, emotional processing defects and impulsivity of soldiers aged 18 to 20 years with high-risk behaviors

2023· article· en· W4388106474 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zahra Sadat Shamsnajafi, Ramazan Hasanzadeh, Seyyedeh Olia Emadian

Bibliographic record

Venuejournal of Adolescent and Youth Psychological Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpulsivityDialectical behavior therapyPsychologyCognitionPsychotherapistDialecticClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aim: High-risk behaviors are behaviors that increase the likelihood of physical, psychological and social disastrous consequences for the individual. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of compassionate mind therapy and dialectical behavior therapy on cognitive deficits, emotional processing defects and impulsivity of soldiers aged 18 to 20 years with high-risk behaviors. Methods: The method of the present study was quasiexperimental with a pretest-posttest design with a follow-up group. The statistical population of this study included all soldiers aged 18 to 20 years who referred to Valiasr Medical Center in Tehran in 2020. The sample selection process in the present study consisted of two stages: The first stage was done by purposeful sampling method of high-risk behaviors questionnaire to screen soldiers referred to Valiasr Medical Center in Tehran and among those who received a score higher than the screening method 50 people were selected based on the completion of the consent form for participation in the research as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria of 45 people (15 people in the first experimental group, 15 people in the second experimental group and 15 people in the control) and specialized in 3 groups at random. To collect data, Iranian adolescents' risk questionnaires, cognitive deficits, Toronto Alexithymia scale, and Impulsivity Scale were used. Results: A pairwise comparison between the two treatment groups showed that cognitive deficits in the two treatment groups of compassion (I-J=7.20; P<0.01) and dialectical behavior therapy (I-J=8.66; P<0.01), Was significant from pre-test to post-test in contrast to control group (I-J=1.56; P<0.05); Also, the study of emotional processing deficits shows that only the dialectical behavior therapy group (I-J=12.73; P<0.01) was significant from pre-test to post-test. Also, the study of impulsivity in treatment groups shows that only compassion treatment was effective in reducing impulsivity (I-J=7.66; P<0.01). Conclusion: According to the findings of the present study, it seems that with compassionate practice and increasing positive emotions, a person's behavioral-intellectual treasury expands, which can it provided the basis for problem-solving and the reduction of conflicts between intrapersonal and interpersonal emotions, thereby reducing impulsivity and risky behaviors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuejournal of Adolescent and Youth Psychological StudiesSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207