Effectiveness of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) in Couple Burnout, Alexithymia, and Quality of Life of Women Affected by Marital Infidelity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) in alexithymia, couple burnout, and quality of life of women affected by marital infidelity. Methods: This was a quasi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest design with a control group and a one-month follow-up. The statistical population included women who were betrayed and referred to counseling centers in Mashhad, from which 20 women were selected by convenience sampling and randomly assigned to experimental (n = 10) and control groups (n = 10). The study tools included the Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS) (1994), the couple burnout measure (CBM) of Pines (1996), and the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) of Ware & Sherbourne (1993). The experimental group received the ACT intervention of Eifert et al. (2009) for twelve sessions. Data were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA. Results: The results showed that ACT affected alexithymia (F = 7.74, P = 0.012), couple burnout (F = 9.32, P = 0.007), and quality of life (F = 10.93, P = 0.004) of women affected by marital infidelity and that this effect was stable during the follow-up phase. Conclusion: The results indicate that this treatment can be used to help betrayed women who are seeking recovery due to its psychological flexibility and emphasis on motivational and cognitive aspects.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".