با احترام و بدون توهین، تحقیر، برچسبزنی یا حملهی شخصی با دیگران گفتگو کنید.
از نوشتن هرگونه اطلاعات هویتی یا قابلشناسایی مراجعان، بیماران یا اشخاص ثالث، از جمله نام، شمارهی تماس، تصویر، نشانی، محل کار یا جزئیات منحصربهفرد پرونده خودداری کنید.
اگر دربارهی یک تجربهی بالینی سؤال میکنید، اطلاعات را تا حد ممکن بینام و کلی بیان کنید تا امکان شناسایی فرد وجود نداشته باشد.
این بخش برای یادگیری و گفتوگوی علمی است و جایگزین ارزیابی، تشخیص، مشاوره یا رواندرمانی شخصی نیست.
در شرایط بحران یا خطر آسیب به خود یا دیگران، به این بخش اتکا نکنید و برای دریافت کمک فوری با اورژانس اجتماعی ۱۲۳ یا صدای مشاور بهزیستی ۱۴۸۰ تماس بگیرید.
انتشار تبلیغات، معرفی خدمات شخصی، شمارهی تلفن، شناسهی شبکههای اجتماعی، پیوند تبلیغاتی یا درخواست جذب مراجع در این بخش مجاز نیست.
در بیان ادعاهای علمی، بهویژه دربارهی اثربخشی درمانها، تشخیص یا یافتههای پژوهشی، تا حد امکان نام منبع معتبر، مقاله یا راهنمای علمی را ذکر کنید.
از ارائهی تشخیص قطعی، تجویز درمان یا دارو و توصیههای بالینی شخصی به سایر کاربران خودداری کنید.
پاسخهایی که کارشناسان فکر بنیان میدهند با برچسب «پاسخ فکر بنیان» یا «کارشناس فکر بنیان» نمایش داده میشوند و سایر نوشتهها بیانگر نظر کاربران هستند.
گزارش نوشتهی نامناسب: اگر نوشتهای حاوی نقض محرمانگی، محتوای آسیبزا، توهین، تبلیغ یا تخلف از این قوانین است، گزینهی «گزارش» را انتخاب کنید تا تیم سایت بررسی کند.
ABSTRACT Introduction Anxiety is central to the psychotherapy process, yet psychotherapists routinely infer a client's anxiety intensity from observable behaviour rather than from formal measurement, with no widely accepted framework to organise which observable markers indicate which levels of anxiety. This exploratory study examined how therapists make such classifications. Method Ninety‐one mental health professionals were randomly assigned to classify 41 text‐described behavioural and physiological markers using either a 5‐level or a simplified 3‐level category system, both derived from an integrated model of state anxiety in psychotherapy. Results Response distributions departed significantly from uniformity for nearly all markers in both formats, and the rank ordering of markers by intensity was highly consistent across formats, suggesting that therapists may share broad intuitions about relative marker intensity. Which markers elicited agreement, however, was far less reproducible, depending substantially on the response format. Convergence also depended on where the agreement criterion was set, declining from 90.2% to 51.2% of markers in the 3‐level format and from 63.4% to 22.0% in the 5‐level format as the criterion rose from > 0.50 to > 0.70. The 3‐level format yielded more classifiable markers at every criterion, although this advantage was not consistent across indices, whereas the 5‐level format elicited fewer ‘Insufficient to Determine’ responses. Markers placed at the highest intensity levels were classified most consistently. Discussion These findings offer preliminary groundwork for research on marker operationalisation, contextualised rating tasks and the development of training materials for psychotherapy process research.
Student engagement positively influences academic achievement, yet instruments suited to the Indonesian cultural context remain limited. This study aimed to develop a valid, reliable, and user-friendly student engagement scale for high school students. Using a quantitative descriptive design, the study involved 295 male and female students aged 15–18 years recruited through convenience sampling. The scale comprised three dimensions: behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. The results showed that the scale demonstrated a good model fit based on the goodness-of-fit indices (χ2/df = 1.60; CFI = 0.966; TLI = 0.962; SRMR = 0.074; RMSEA = 0.045) and good reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.844 for emotional engagement, 0.753 for behavioral engagement, and 0.782 for cognitive engagement. The developed scale can be used by teachers, counselors, and educational researchers to identify students’ levels of engagement and inform the development of programs to improve student engagement.
Psychotherapy is supported by evidence across several psychological conditions, yet its value cannot be understood solely through symptom change. This thematic integrative review examines psychotherapy as both an intervention and a relational setting in which psychological safety, trust, collaboration, and self-understanding may support change. Literature discussed in the source synopsis is organized around three themes: psychotherapy outcomes across mood, anxiety, trauma-related, and personality difficulties; the therapeutic alliance and safety; and adapted, neurodiversity-affirming support for autistic people. Meta-analytic and theoretical literature generally supports psychotherapy effectiveness, while alliance research identifies the therapeutic relationship as a robust correlate of outcomes. Work on autistic youth suggests that adapted interventions can be beneficial, although outcomes and methods vary. Across these areas, the review identifies a need to connect clinical outcomes with clients? lived experience of safety, identity, accessibility, and agency. The review is integrative rather than systematic: the source material does not document reproducible database searches, screening counts, or formal quality appraisal. Accordingly, conclusions are interpretive and should not be treated as a comprehensive estimate of treatment effects. The paper argues for therapeutic spaces that combine evidence-informed care with collaborative, individualized, and affirming relationships.
Teacher assessment literacy has received increasing attention, yet evidence remains fragmented across studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized 18 studies comprising 21 independent samples using the ALI, CALI, and TALQ instruments. The pooled mean score was 16.48 (95% CI [14.86, 18.10]) on a 35-point scale, indicating low assessment literacy, with substantial between-study heterogeneity (I² = 99.21%). Publication year, geographical region, instrument type, teacher status, teaching level, and subject specialization were not significant moderators. This review provides the first quantitative benchmark of teacher assessment literacy across the ALI, CALI, and TALQ instruments and highlights the need to strengthen assessment literacy through pre-service education, continuous professional development, and context-responsive educational policies.