Building Psychological Strengths: A Study on the Effectiveness of Psychological Capital Workshops in Improving Adaptive Behavior Among Patients with Physical Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of psychological capital workshops in enhancing adaptive behavior among patients with physical disabilities. It explored how interventions focusing on optimism, hope, resilience, and self-efficacy could influence the adaptive capabilities necessary for navigating life with a physical disability. A randomized controlled trial design was employed, involving 30 participants with physical disabilities, divided equally into intervention and control groups. The intervention group underwent a structured psychological capital workshop comprising ten sessions, each lasting 75 minutes. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition (Vineland-3), was utilized to measure adaptive behavior at baseline, post-intervention, and at a four-month follow-up. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 27, employing repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni post-hoc tests to assess changes over time within and between groups. The intervention group exhibited significant improvements in adaptive behavior from baseline to post-intervention and maintained these gains at the four-month follow-up. In contrast, the control group showed no significant changes in adaptive behavior across the same periods. The analysis confirmed the effectiveness of the psychological capital workshops, with significant differences in adaptive behavior scores between the intervention and control groups, particularly notable in the post-intervention and follow-up assessments. Psychological capital workshops significantly enhance adaptive behavior in individuals with physical disabilities, highlighting the potential of psychological interventions in rehabilitation programs. By focusing on developing psychological strengths, such as resilience, hope, optimism, and self-efficacy, individuals with physical disabilities can achieve better adaptive outcomes, improving their quality of life and ability to navigate daily challenges.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".