درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Objective: This study aimed to examine the mediating role of family cohesion in the relationship between family economic hardship and adolescent risk-taking. Methods and Materials: A descriptive correlational research design was employed with a sample of 520 adolescents recruited from secondary schools in India, determined through Morgan and Krejcie’s sample size table. Data were collected using standardized self-report instruments: the Adolescent Risk-Taking Questionnaire (ARQ), the Economic Hardship Questionnaire (EHQ), and the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES IV). Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS-27 and AMOS-21. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine associations among variables, and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was performed to test the hypothesized mediation model. Model fit was evaluated using Chi-square, χ²/df, GFI, AGFI, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA indices. Findings: Results indicated that family economic hardship was positively correlated with adolescent risk-taking (r = .42, p = .001) and negatively correlated with family cohesion (r = −.40, p = .001). Family cohesion was inversely related to adolescent risk-taking (r = −.36, p = .002). The SEM analysis demonstrated adequate model fit (χ²/df = 2.17, GFI = .93, AGFI = .90, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .048). Direct paths showed that family economic hardship significantly predicted adolescent risk-taking (β = .38, p = .001) and negatively predicted family cohesion (β = −.41, p = .001). Family cohesion negatively predicted adolescent risk-taking (β = −.29, p = .002). The indirect effect of economic hardship on risk-taking via cohesion was significant (β = .12, p = .006), supporting the mediation hypothesis. Conclusion: Findings highlight that family cohesion partially mediates the link between economic hardship and adolescent risk-taking. Strengthening family cohesion may buffer adolescents from the adverse effects of financial strain and serve as a practical target for interventions aimed at reducing risk behaviors.

Objective: This study aimed to design and validate a structural model of marital satisfaction based on the components of systemic–spiritual couple therapy, with the mediating role of the family power structure. Methods and Materials: The research adopted a descriptive–correlational design with an applied objective. The statistical population included all couples in Isfahan who had been married for at least five years. Using convenience sampling, 384 participants (192 couples) were selected from counseling centers. Participants completed the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire, the Family Power Structure Questionnaire, and the Systemic–Spiritual Couple Therapy Scale. Data were analyzed using Pearson correlation, multiple regression, and structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS software. Findings: Results showed that systemic–spiritual couple therapy had a significant positive effect on marital satisfaction (β = 0.54, p < 0.001) and on the family power structure (β = 0.61, p < 0.001). The family power structure also significantly predicted marital satisfaction (β = 0.24, p < 0.01), confirming its mediating role. The overall model demonstrated good fit indices, supporting the hypothesized relationships among variables. Regression analysis also revealed that the components of systemic–spiritual couple therapy and family power structure together explained 25% of the variance in marital satisfaction (R² = 0.25, F = 66.51, p < 0.001). Conclusion: The findings support the effectiveness of systemic–spiritual couple therapy in enhancing marital satisfaction, both directly and indirectly through improvements in family power dynamics. The proposed model underscores the importance of integrating spiritual and systemic interventions with structural family variables to improve relationship outcomes.