An evaluation of short-term group therapy for battered women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to provide data which could evaluate the effectiveness as well as explore how women use group therapy to recover from the traumatic impact of abuse by men partners. Clients (twenty women) were recruited from existing social services in Winnipeg MB and through newspaper advertisements to attend a twelve week group therapy program. Self-report questionnaires completed by clients indicated that half of the presenting problem variables measured changed significantly following group therapy, while half remained unchanged. Loneliness, psychological distress, disclosure shame, and self-blame significantly ('p' < .005) decreased from pre- to post-therapy while safety fears, assault fears, beliefs about battering and self-worth did not change. Post-therapy interviews provided descriptions of the process of change experienced by clients in group therapy. Sharing with others who had been through similar experiences created a strong sense of acceptance, empowerment, readiness to face the realities of the abuse, problem solving and decision making. As powerful as the group experience was for many clients, some limitations of group therapy were noted. The combined strengths of group therapy and individual therapy were recommended by clients for optimal recovery by battered women. The results demonstrated support for the model of Post Traumatic Stress Reaction (PTSR; Horowitz 1976, 1980) to describe the impact of battering on women as well as clients' change from earlier to later phases of PTSR through short-term group therapy.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".