Posttraumatic symptom improvement in trauma practice triphasic therapy: Preliminary findings from a multisite, community-based setting.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effectiveness of trauma practice (TP), a multimodal, triphasic approach to trauma therapy, within a community-based setting, including phase-linked effects on therapeutic outcomes. METHOD: fifth edition) and trauma-related distress (Trauma Symptom Checklist [TSC-40]) were measured at baseline, after each phase, and at 6 months posttherapy. RESULTS: Mixed effects models, nested by participants and clinician education level, showed significant decreases in posttraumatic symptoms and trauma symptom distress, reflecting a shift from clinical to nonclinical levels with robust effect sizes and reliable change indices. Phase-based analyses indicated symptom improvement during each treatment phase, with the greatest improvement observed in Phase I. Treatment gains were maintained at follow-up; however, sample sizes at follow-up were small. CONCLUSIONS: This study's implications suggest a strong foundation for TP's effectiveness and clinical utility, encouraging further exploration into its phase-specific benefits and broader application in trauma therapy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".