How mothers with severe emotion dysregulation use DBT skills in parenting contexts: observational coding of skills use in a DBT skills training group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dialectical Behavior Therapy's (DBT) well established effectiveness in reducing emotion dysregulation, and the growing recognition that parental emotion regulation is critical to effective parenting has led to increasing interest in the applicability of DBT skills to parenting. Efforts to integrate DBT and parenting interventions would benefit from an empirical examination of which DBT skills are most useful to parents with emotion dysregulation. METHODS: This study used clinician-rated observational coding of skill use examples that were provided by mothers with severe emotion dysregulation (n = 16) who participated in a standard 48-week DBT Skills Training (DBT-ST) program in the context of a larger randomized controlled trial (NCT03060902). Mothers described their use of DBT skills during the homework review portion of DBT-ST sessions and video-recordings were then examined and coded to identify which DBT skills mothers most frequently described using in parenting situations (vs. non-parenting situations) and which skills were used to either increase positive parenting behaviors or to decrease negative parenting behaviors. RESULTS: A total of 220 skill use examples were coded and approximately one-quarter described skill use in parenting situations. Mindfulness, Distress Tolerance, and Emotion Regulation skills were the most frequently described skills used in parenting situations, while Interpersonal Effectiveness skills were rarely coded. Mindfulness and Emotion Regulation skills were most often coded when mothers' parenting goal was to increase positive parenting, while Distress Tolerance skills were most often coded when mothers' parenting goal was to decrease negative parenting behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide an empirical basis which clinicians and treatment developers can use when selecting DBT skills to apply towards parenting 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".