Suppr超能文献

团体阅读疗法研究的定量方法:一项试点研究。

Quantitative methods for group bibliotherapy research: a pilot study.

作者信息

Troscianko Emily T, Holman Emily, Carney James

机构信息

The Oxford Research Centre for the Humanities, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Campion Hall, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

出版信息

Wellcome Open Res. 2024 Jan 4;7:79. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17469.1. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Bibliotherapy is under-theorized and under-tested: Its purposes and implementations vary widely, and the idea that 'reading is good for you' is often more assumed than demonstrated. One obstacle to developing robust empirical and theoretical foundations for bibliotherapy is the absence of analytical methods capable of providing sensitive yet replicable insights into complex textual material. This pilot study offers a proof-of-concept for new quantitative methods including VAD (valence-arousal-dominance) modelling of emotional variance and doc2vec modelling of linguistic similarity.

METHODS

VAD and doc2vec modelling were used on conjunction with qualitative coding to analyse transcripts of reading-group discussions plus the literary texts being discussed, from two reading groups each meeting weekly for six weeks (including 9 participants [5 researchers (3 authors, 2 collaborators), 4 others] in Group 1, and 8 participants [2 authors, 6 others] in Group 2).

RESULTS

In-text-discussion similarity was inversely correlated with emotional volatility in the group discussions (arousal: = -0.25; = ns; dominance: = 0.21; = ns; valence: = -0.28; = ns). Enjoyment or otherwise of the texts was less significant than other factors in shaping the significance and potential benefits of participation. (Texts with unpleasant or disturbing content that strongly shaped subsequent discussions of these texts were still able to sponsor 'healthy' discussions of this content.).

CONCLUSIONS

Our methods and findings offer for the field of bibliotherapy research both new possibilities for hypotheses to test, and viable ways of testing them. In particular, the use of natural language processing methods and word norm data offer valuable complements to intuitive human judgement and self-report when assessing the impact of literary materials. We also share observations on facilitation protocols, interpretative practices, and how our group reading model differs from other trials of group reading for wellbeing.

摘要

背景

阅读疗法的理论研究不足且缺乏充分验证:其目的和实施方式差异很大,“阅读有益健康”这一观点往往是假设而非经过论证的。为阅读疗法建立坚实的实证和理论基础的一个障碍是缺乏能够对复杂文本材料提供敏感且可重复见解的分析方法。这项试点研究为新的定量方法提供了概念验证,包括情绪方差的VAD(效价 - 唤醒 - 优势度)建模和语言相似性的doc2vec建模。

方法

将VAD和doc2vec建模与定性编码相结合,分析两个阅读小组的阅读小组讨论记录以及所讨论的文学文本。每个小组每周聚会一次,共六周(第一组包括9名参与者[5名研究人员(3名作者,2名合作者),4名其他人],第二组包括8名参与者[2名作者,6名其他人])。

结果

文本内讨论的相似性与小组讨论中的情绪波动呈负相关(唤醒:= -0.25;=无显著性差异;优势度:= 0.21;=无显著性差异;效价:= -0.28;=无显著性差异)。在塑造参与的意义和潜在益处方面,对文本的喜爱与否不如其他因素重要。(内容不愉快或令人不安但强烈影响了后续对这些文本讨论的文本,仍然能够引发关于此内容的“健康”讨论。)

结论

我们的方法和研究结果为阅读疗法研究领域提供了新的假设检验可能性以及可行的检验方法。特别是,在评估文学材料的影响时,自然语言处理方法和词规范数据的使用为直观的人类判断和自我报告提供了有价值的补充。我们还分享了关于促进方案、解释性实践的观察结果,以及我们的小组阅读模式与其他促进健康的小组阅读试验的不同之处。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验