Comparison of the effectiveness of compassionate mind-based therapy and dialectical behavior therapy on cognitive deficits, emotional processing defects and impulsivity of adolescent soldiers aged 18 to 20 years with high-risk behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 adolescent soldiers aged 18 to 20 years with high-risk behaviors. Methods: The method of the present study was quasi-experimental with a pretest-posttest design with a follow-up group. The statistical population of this study included all adolescent 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".