Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Caspian Journal of Neurological Sciences (CJNS)

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
RCI: Reliable change index. Table 3. The changes in the participants’ psychological wellbeing scores in the baseline, treatment, and follow-up phases

Table 3 RCI: Reliable change index. Table 3. The changes in the participants’ psychological wellbeing scores in the baseline, treatment, and follow-up phases

Related Figures (4)

Table 1. The content of the training intervention Participant A was a 27-year-old PhD candidate, and her average baseline resilience and psychological wellbe- ing scores were 61 and 244, respectively. She used to refer to counseling sessions for stress control. Her main complaint was her inability to express anger and obedi- ence to others to satisfy them. Thus, accepting multiple responsibilities at first seemed to be a supportive factor. Still, during the meetings, it was revealed to be an ob- The content of the training intervention was developed based on a review of the theoretical and empirical literature on the Caroline Leaf neurocycle model. Moreover, the training intervention’s objectives, the content’s structure and organization, and the number of sessions were determined based on previous works in this field: “Cleaning up your mental mess” [14] and “switch on brain power” [22]. The materials on the structure and function of the brain and the neuroscience of stress were developed based on the “synopsis of psychiatry” [23], “an affective neuroscience model of boosting resilience in adults” [18], “resilience training that can change the brain” [15], and “the plasticity of wellbeing: A training-based framework for the cultivation of human flourishing” [11]. After obtaining the necessary permits, the participants were selected from female students
Table 1. The content of the training intervention Participant A was a 27-year-old PhD candidate, and her average baseline resilience and psychological wellbe- ing scores were 61 and 244, respectively. She used to refer to counseling sessions for stress control. Her main complaint was her inability to express anger and obedi- ence to others to satisfy them. Thus, accepting multiple responsibilities at first seemed to be a supportive factor. Still, during the meetings, it was revealed to be an ob- The content of the training intervention was developed based on a review of the theoretical and empirical literature on the Caroline Leaf neurocycle model. Moreover, the training intervention’s objectives, the content’s structure and organization, and the number of sessions were determined based on previous works in this field: “Cleaning up your mental mess” [14] and “switch on brain power” [22]. The materials on the structure and function of the brain and the neuroscience of stress were developed based on the “synopsis of psychiatry” [23], “an affective neuroscience model of boosting resilience in adults” [18], “resilience training that can change the brain” [15], and “the plasticity of wellbeing: A training-based framework for the cultivation of human flourishing” [11]. After obtaining the necessary permits, the participants were selected from female students
Figure 1. The changes in the participants’ resilience scores As seen in Table 2 and Figure 1, the upward trend of the participants’ scores compared to the control shows the effectiveness of the intervention in improving their resil- ience scores. The scores for participant A show a pretty regular upward trend with fewer fluctuations. The scores for the other two participants also show an upward trend, except for the fourth session, which shows a slight drop in their scores. Participant C shows more than 50% im- provement in the resilience scores after the 12th session and follow-up phase. Thus, in addition to the upward trend of the scores, the intervention was also clinically significant for this participant. Moreover, participant A shows an improvement of slightly less than 50% after the follow-up phase, indicating the clinical significance of the intervention for this participant. The total im- provement in the 3 participants’ resilience scores shows positive and effective changes, but these changes are not clinically significant. Overall, the increased improve- Participant C was a 26-year-old master’s student, and her average baseline resilience and psychological well- being scores were 62 and 243, respectively. She repeated hat she had no tolerance for being in suspense. The con- inuous look exercise was performed in different fields because all-or-nothing thinking was one of the obstacles o establishing communication, leading to a sense of in- adequacy and indecision. She stated, “now I think more before reacting, or if | want to show a reaction, I will find out later how to approach it and weigh my choices.” Her scores in both variables showed an upward trend despite fluctuations, especially in the first sessions.
Figure 1. The changes in the participants’ resilience scores As seen in Table 2 and Figure 1, the upward trend of the participants’ scores compared to the control shows the effectiveness of the intervention in improving their resil- ience scores. The scores for participant A show a pretty regular upward trend with fewer fluctuations. The scores for the other two participants also show an upward trend, except for the fourth session, which shows a slight drop in their scores. Participant C shows more than 50% im- provement in the resilience scores after the 12th session and follow-up phase. Thus, in addition to the upward trend of the scores, the intervention was also clinically significant for this participant. Moreover, participant A shows an improvement of slightly less than 50% after the follow-up phase, indicating the clinical significance of the intervention for this participant. The total im- provement in the 3 participants’ resilience scores shows positive and effective changes, but these changes are not clinically significant. Overall, the increased improve- Participant C was a 26-year-old master’s student, and her average baseline resilience and psychological well- being scores were 62 and 243, respectively. She repeated hat she had no tolerance for being in suspense. The con- inuous look exercise was performed in different fields because all-or-nothing thinking was one of the obstacles o establishing communication, leading to a sense of in- adequacy and indecision. She stated, “now I think more before reacting, or if | want to show a reaction, I will find out later how to approach it and weigh my choices.” Her scores in both variables showed an upward trend despite fluctuations, especially in the first sessions.
Table 2. The changes in the participants’ resilience scores in the baseline, treatment, and follow-up phases
Table 2. The changes in the participants’ resilience scores in the baseline, treatment, and follow-up phases
Figure 2. The changes in the participants’ psychological wellbeing scores
Figure 2. The changes in the participants’ psychological wellbeing scores
Related topics:
Psychological WellbeingCognitive neurosciences
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved