Enhancing Family Connectedness and Resilience through Emotionally Focused Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) for couples in enhancing family connectedness and family resilience. Method: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 40 couples (80 participants) who were randomly assigned to an intervention group (EFT) or a control group (no intervention). Each group comprised 20 couples. The intervention group received eight 75-minute EFT sessions over four months. Family connectedness and resilience were measured using the Family Connectedness Scale (FCS) and Family Resilience Assessment Scale (FRAS) at baseline (T1), post-intervention (T2), and four-month follow-up (T3). Data were analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measurements and Bonferroni post-hoc tests, with SPSS version 27. Results: The intervention group showed significant improvements in family connectedness and resilience. Mean scores for family connectedness increased from 32.45 (SD = 4.12) at T1 to 45.38 (SD = 3.78) at T2 and were maintained at 44.95 (SD = 3.92) at T3. Family resilience scores increased from 48.62 (SD = 5.11) at T1 to 59.74 (SD = 4.89) at T2 and were maintained at 58.67 (SD = 5.02) at T3. The ANOVA results indicated significant main effects of time for both family connectedness (F(2, 76) = 104.12, p < .001, η² = 0.73) and family resilience (F(2, 76) = 85.34, p < .001, η² = 0.69). The time x group interactions were also significant for family connectedness (F(2, 76) = 98.79, p < .001, η² = 0.72) and family resilience (F(2, 76) = 82.67, p < .001, η² = 0.68). Bonferroni post-hoc tests confirmed significant improvements from T1 to T2 and T1 to T3 for both variables. Conclusion: Emotionally Focused Therapy is effective in significantly enhancing family connectedness and resilience among couples. These improvements were maintained at a four-month follow-up, suggesting that EFT provides long-lasting benefits for family dynamics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".