The roles of self-regulation and coping in a preventative cognitive-behavioural intervention for school-age children at-risk for internalizing disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the effects of a preventative cognitive behavioural intervention targeting children at-risk for anxiety and depressive disorders. This study aimed to discern the effective ingredients of a cognitive behavioural approach by comparing the active intervention to an attention placebo control (activity group). This study was also designed to better understand relationships between self-regulation, coping skills, internalizing symptoms, and therapeutic change. Self-regulation was proposed as a potential moderator and enhanced coping as a potential mediator of intervention outcome. Participants included 66 children, aged 7 to 11 years (M = 9.02, SD = 1.18), with elevated anxious and depressive symptoms, and their parents. The participants were randomly assigned to either a cognitive behavioural intervention (CBT) or to an activity group of equal duration. Children completed assessments of their self-regulatory abilities, coping skills, and anxious and depressive symptoms. Likewise, their parents completed assessments of their children's self-regulatory abilities and their symptoms. Results indicated that CBT was not more effective than the activity group, with all children demonstrating significant improvements in their anxious and depressive symptoms. Without an intervention effect, the moderating and mediating roles of self-regulation and coping could not be investigated. However, the intervention did predict an increase in distraction coping skills. Discussion centres on possible reasons for the lack of an intervention effect. Furthemore, the importance of investigating the processes behind successful interventions, including both active and non-specific intervention factors, is considered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".