Recovery identity as a buffer: mitigating trauma's impact on recovery capital in collegiate recovery programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Experiencing trauma is well-known to negatively impact AOSUD recovery and recovery capital. However, having a stronger recovery identity positively impacts recovery capital, and can be strengthened through recovery-supportive relationships. Identity change and reconstruction is also central to trauma healing, making it likely that recovery identity buffers the effect of trauma on recovery capital. This study examines this relationship and identifies types of recovery supports that facilitate development of stronger recovery identity within participants in collegiate recovery programs (CRPs). Methods The sample consisted of participants in the National Longitudinal Collegiate Recovery Study who completed all measures at their baseline assessment (N = 168). Total scores of the PCL-5 short form (trauma) and Recovery Identity scale (RI) were regressed on the Brief Assessment of Recovery Capital (BARC) total score. Measures of recovery support, including a measure of support from CRP staff and individual yes/no questions about experiencing various recovery supports, were regressed on RI scores. Results Lower PCL-5 scores and higher RI scores both significantly predicted higher recovery capital scores [adjR2 = .51; F(3, 168) = 59.61, p < .001], and interacted such that having higher RI scores buffered the impact of having higher trauma scores on recovery capital [ΔR2 = .01, F(4, 168) = 46.66, p < .001]. Perceiving CRP staff (β = .04, p = .007) and peers in recovery (β = .32, p < .001) as being supportive of one's recovery significantly predicted higher recovery identity scores [adjR2 = .16; F(5, 173) = 107.01, p < .001]. Conclusion Having a stronger recovery identity buffers the impact of trauma symptoms on recovery capital for CRP participants. CRP participants who perceive their CRP staff as being strong role models and providing a safe, welcoming recovery space and who have support from peers in recovery had stronger recovery identities. CRPs can help participants with higher trauma levels to build recovery-supportive relationships with their peers, and can create supportive, trauma-responsive spaces for all participants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".