Effectiveness of trauma-focused art therapy (TFAT) for psychological trauma: study protocol of a multiple-baseline single-case experimental design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Treatments such as eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing and (narrative) exposure therapies are commonly used in psychological trauma. In everyday practice, art therapy is also often used, although rigorous research on its efficacy is lacking. Patients seem to benefit from the indirect, non-verbal experiential approach of art therapy. This protocol paper describes a study to examine the effectiveness of a 10-week individual trauma-focused art therapy (TFAT) intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-methods multiple-baseline single-case experimental design will be conducted with 25-30 participants with psychological trauma. Participants will be randomly assigned to a baseline period lasting 3-5 weeks, followed by the TFAT intervention (10 weeks) and follow-up (3 weeks). Quantitative measures will be completed weekly: the Beck Depression Inventory-II, the Mental Health Continuum Short Form, the Resilience Scale, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the Self-expression and Emotion Regulation in Art Therapy Scale. The Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-5 will be completed at week 1 and week 10. Qualitative instruments comprise a semistructured interview with each individual patient and therapist, and a short evaluation for the referrer. Artwork will be used to illustrate the narrative findings. Quantitative outcomes will be analysed with linear mixed models using the MultiSCED web application. Qualitative analyses will be performed using thematic analysis with ATLAS.ti. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the ethics committee of the HAN University of Applied Sciences (ECO 394.0922). All participants will sign an informed consent form and data will be treated confidentially. Findings will be published open access in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05593302.
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 | 0.039 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.007 |
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".