Journals / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

DIVORCE PREDICTION USING CORRELATION BASED FEATURE SELECTION AND ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS

Pages
259–273
Publication Date
2019-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results, DPS can predict divorce.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Within the scope of this research, the divorce prediction was carried out by using the Divorce Predictors Scale (DPS) on the basis of Gottman couples therapy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Of the participants, 84 (49%) were divorced and 86 (51%) were married couples.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results, DPS can predict divorce.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Data mining · artificial neural networks · divorce

Özet

Within the scope of this research, the divorce prediction was carried out by using the Divorce Predictors Scale (DPS) on the basis of Gottman couples therapy. Of the participants, 84 (49%) were divorced and 86 (51%) were married couples. Participants completed the “Personal Information Form” and “Divorce Predictors Scale”. In this study, the success of DPS, was investigated using Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network and C4.5 Decision tree algorithms. In addition, the study also aims to find the most significant features/items in the Divorce Predictors Scale that affect the divorce. The most effective 6 features and their values of significance obtained by applying the correlation-based feature selection method on the divorce data set. When we look at these features, they are related to creating a common meaning and failed attempts to repair, love map and negative conflict behaviors. When the direct classification methods were applied to the divorce data set, the highest success rate was 98.23% obtained with the RBF neural network. After selecting the most effective 6 features using the correlation-based feature selection method on the same data set, the highest accuracy rate obtained was 98.82% with ANN. According to the results, DPS can predict divorce. Family counselors and family therapists can use this scale for contribute to the preparation of case formulation and intervention plan. Also it can be said that the divorce predictors in the Gottman couples therapy were confirmed in the Turkish sampling.

🔖

Cite This Article

YÖNTEM, M. K., ADEM, K., İLHAN, T., KILIÇARSLAN, S. (2019). DIVORCE PREDICTION USING CORRELATION BASED FEATURE SELECTION AND ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 259–273. https://ajindex.com/articles/235925

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Babcock, J.C., Gottman, J., Ryan, K. & Gottman, J. (2013). A component analysis of a brief psycho‐educational couples' workshop: one‐year follow‐up results. Journal of Family Therapy 35(3): 252-280. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12017 Baca-García, E., et al. (2006). Using data mining to explore complex clinical decisions: a study of hospitalization after a suicide attempt. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 67(7): 1124-1132. http://dx.doi.org/10.4088/JCP.v67n0716
  2. Bae, S. M., Lee, S. H., Park, Y. M., Hyun, M. H., & Yoon, H. (2010). Predictive factors of social functioning in patients with schizophrenia: exploration for the best combination of variables using data mining. Psychiatry investigation, 7(2): 93-101. https://doi.org/10.4306/pi.2010.7.2.93
  3. Barnacle, R. ES, & Abbott, D. A. (2009). The development and evaluation of a Gottman-based premarital education program: A pilot study. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy; 8(1): 64-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332690802626734
  4. Çelik, E., Atalay, M. & Bayer, H. (2014). Yapay Sinir Ağları ve Destek Vektör Makineleri ile Deprem Tahmininde Sismik Darbelerin Kullanılması. IEEE 22nd Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conferance (SIU), 730-733.
  5. Eriksson, R., Werge, T., Jensen, L. J., & Brunak, S. (2014). Dose-specific adverse drug reaction identification in electronic patient records: temporal data mining in an inpatient psychiatric population. Drug safety, 37(4): 237-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40264-014-0158-7
  6. Ertunc, H. M., Ocak, H. & Aliustaoglu, C. (2013). ANN-and ANFIS-based multi-staged decision algorithm for the detection and diagnosis of bearing faults. Neural Computing and Applications, 22(1): 435-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-0912-7
  7. Fayyad, U. M., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., Smyth, P. & Uthurusamy, R. (1996). Advances in knowledge discovery and data mining. American Association for Artificial Intelligence Menlo Park, CA, USA. Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically-based marital therapy. WW Norton & Company. Gottman, J. M. (2014). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Psychology Press.
  8. Gottman, J. M. & Gottman, J.S. (2012). Çiftler arasında köprüyü inşa etmek: Gottman çift terapisi eğitimi 1. düzey kitabı, [Level 1 clinical training. Gottman Method Couples Therapy. Bringing to couple chasm.] İstanbul,
  9. Psikoloji İstanbul.
  10. Gottman, J. ve Silver, N. (2014). Aşk nasıl sürdürülür. Aşk laboratuarından sırlar. (tra