Training problem gambling counsellors in Congruence Couple Therapy: Evaluation of training outcomes. International Gambling Studies, 8(1), 95–111. Available from http://hdl.handle.net/10133/567 This article was accessed from from the
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Congruence Couple Therapy (CCT) is an integrative, humanistic, systemic model for problem gambling treatment. This study evaluates the efficacy of CCT training in imparting key concepts, skills and values of CCT to a sample of problem gambling counsellors (N = 21) from 13 Ontario problem gambling treatment programmes. CCT training comprised of a 4-day residential workshop followed by 12 weeks of CCT application to couples supported by teleconference consultation. Two cycles of training were conducted. The evaluations were driven by two controlled designs using quantitative measures complemented by qualitative data. Triangulated mixed methods findings indicate that counsellors increased significantly their knowledge of CCT concepts, values and skills from both training cycles. Trainee satisfaction was highly positive. Further studies on CCT and CCT training are recommended in light of these results.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".