درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Oral exams are a threatening situation for students, and avoidance behaviours such as postponement and expression inhibition, are ways of coping with tests anxiety. Present study aims to classify students into profiles based upon their levels of test anxiety and behavioural avoidance and explore differences in cognitive-regulation strategies and skills across the profiles. Participants (N=155) completed self-reports in an online survey. Latent class analysis identified four profiles of students combining levels of test anxiety, expression inhibition, and postponement. Multivariate analysis of variance indicated differences across groups in emotion regulation strategies with catastrophizing and rumination as the most employed in highly test anxious groups, and positive reappraisal in lowest test anxiety groups. In emotion regulation difficulties, the most distressed groups exhibited more deficits to control interference in goal-oriented behaviours, control impulses and emotion acceptance, compared with the remaining groups. Results support inclusion of emotion-regulation training in treatment of oral test anxiety.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Gottman couple therapy and cognitive-behavioral couple therapy in improving marital satisfaction among married students at Islamic Azad University, Hamedan Branch. Methods: The study utilized a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design with a control group. A total of 45 married students were selected through convenience sampling and randomly assigned into three groups: Gottman couple therapy (n = 15), cognitive-behavioral couple therapy (n = 15), and a control group (n = 15). The intervention groups received 10 sessions of Gottman couple therapy or 8 sessions of cognitive-behavioral couple therapy, while the control group received no intervention. The ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire (47-item short form) was used to assess marital satisfaction before and after the interventions. Data were analyzed using SPSS-24 software, employing multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare the effects of the interventions. Findings: The results indicated that both Gottman couple therapy and cognitive-behavioral couple therapy significantly improved marital satisfaction compared to the control group (p < 0.05). The effect size analysis revealed that Gottman couple therapy had a greater impact (η² = 0.789) compared to cognitive-behavioral couple therapy (η² = 0.721), particularly in areas related to emotional communication, conflict management, and decision-making. However, the ANOVA results showed no statistically significant difference between the two intervention groups (p > 0.05), indicating that both approaches were similarly effective in enhancing marital satisfaction. Conclusion: Both Gottman couple therapy and cognitive-behavioral couple therapy were effective in increasing marital satisfaction among married students, with Gottman couple therapy demonstrating a slightly greater impact. Given the shared principles of these approaches, future research should explore the potential benefits of integrating them to create a more comprehensive intervention for couples.