Channel
@Clinical_yousefi
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry
526subscribers
+274 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1004336534399 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @Clinical_yousefi |
| Created | Between 1 June 2026 and 5 August 2026— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 8 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 15 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 4 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 15 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/Clinical_yousefi |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 15 Aug 2026, 02:24 | 526 | +216 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 07:47 | 310 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 17:55 | 310 | +58 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 08:45 | 252 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 5 August 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 2 of 20 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 7 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (5 August 2026 – 7 August 2026) |
| Views total | 4,076 |
| Reactions total | 9 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 8 Aug 2026, 07:47 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
9 reactions across 2 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 55.6% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 5 | 55.6% | |
| 🔥 | 2 | 22.2% | |
| 👍 | 1 | 11.1% | |
| 👏 | 1 | 11.1% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 2 of the 20 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 9reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 5 August 2026 to 7 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
تفاوت تشخیص و فرمولبندی موردی توضیح ۵ P بسیار مهم در فرمولبندی موردی Presenting problems مشکلات فعلی Predisposing factors عوامل مستعدکننده Precipitating factors عوامل آشکارساز Perpetuating factors عوامل تداومبخش Protective factors عوامل محافظتی
❤5👍1
جزوه جامع روانشناسی بالینی فصل سوم تشخیص و طبقهبندی مشکلات روانی همراه با ۲۵ تست تالیفی همراه با پاسخ تشریحی در پایان فصل از حجم زیاد صفحات نترسید، بیشترش مثال و توضیحات اضافه است برای کمک به درک بهتر مطالب. #جلسه_۳ #فصل_۳ @Clinical_Yousefi
🔥2👏1
در مدل آسیبپذیری-استرس، رابطه معکوس برقرار است؛ یعنی فردی با آسیبپذیری (دیاتز) شدید، حتی با استرسهای بسیار کوچک روزمره نیز ممکن است دچار اختلال شود.
عوامل زمینهساز بسترهای مزمن و آسیبپذیری زیربنایی (Diathesis) را میسازند؛ در حالی که عوامل تجلیساز استرسورهای حادی (Stress) هستند که نقش ماشهچکان را ایفا میکنند.
در رویکرد پروتوتیپ (Prototype) یک الگوی مرجع و ایدهآل تعریف شده و میزان تطابق و شباهت مراجع با آن الگوی اولیه ملاک قرار میگیرد.
گزینه ۲ صحیح است. رویکرد طبقهای نگاه کیفی و گسسته دارد؛ کاستی اصلی آن ایجاد مرزهای مصنوعی، همابتلایی (Comorbidity) بالا و از دست رفتن تفاوتهای فردی است.
عوامل تداومبخش (Perpetuating) شامل رفتارها، مکانیسمها یا تقویتهایی هستند که مانع بهبود شده و چرخه اختلال را حفظ میکنند.
عوامل آشکارساز یا راهانداز، رویدادها و استرسهای اخیری هستند که آستانه تحمل فرد را شکسته و اختلال را فعال میکنند.
عوامل مستعدکننده (Predisposing) شامل آسیبپذیریهای تاریخی، ژنتیکی و تحولی دوران کودکی هستند که فرد را طی زمان آماده ابتلا به اختلال میکنند.
تشخیص عبارت است از الصاق برچسب و نامگذاری بیماری (نگاه نمانگری)، اما صورتبندی مورد، توضیح علل شکلگیری، تداوم و نقشه راه درمان برای یک انسان منحصربهفرد است.
گزینه ۲ صحیح است. در اختلالاتی مانند دوره شیدایی (Mania) و اختلال شخصیت ضداجتماعی (ASPD)، رفتارهای فرد همخوان با خود (Egosyntonic) هستند؛ بنابراین فرد احساس رنج یا عذاب درونی نمیکند. گزینه ۱ غلط است زیرا رنج شرط لازم یا کافی برای همه اختلالات نیست؛ گزینه ۳ غلط است زیرا سوگ طبیعی پاسخ انطباقی و طبیعی است؛ گزینه ۴ نیز غلط است زیرا این ملاک دقیقاً بر جنبه پدیدارشناختی و تجربه زیسته استوار است.
در مدل آسیبپذیری-استرس (Diathesis-Stress Model)، «اصل رابطه معکوس» به چه معناست؟
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @Clinical_yousefi. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
The 6 most recent of 9 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
در مدل آسیبپذیری-استرس (Diathesis-Stress Model)، «اصل رابطه معکوس» به چه معناست؟
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
تفاوت ماهوی «عوامل زمینهساز» (Predisposing) و «عوامل تجلیساز» (Precipitating) در چیست؟
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
پذیرش نقش «بیمار ناتوان» توسط مراجع به دلیل دریافت برچسب تشخیصی و دست برداشتن از تلاش، مصداق کدام آسیب بالینی است؟
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
اینکه یک سیستم طبقهبندی بتواند اکثر مراجعان مراجعهکننده به کلینیک را پوشش داده و نیاز به استفاده از طبقات مبهم مانند NOS را کاهش دهد، نشاندهنده کدام معیار ارزیابی است؟
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
اگر در یک نظام تشخیصی، برای یک اختلال «تصویر بالینی ایدهآل» تدوین شده و میزان شباهت بیمار واقعی با آن سنجیده شود، از کدام رویکرد استفاده شده است؟
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
کدام رویکرد طبقهبندی، رفتارها را بر روی یک پیوستار (Continuum) ارزیابی کرده و تفاوت افراد را «کمی» میداند؟
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none.The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100.Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 5 August 2026 to 7 August 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Citation-graph rank — 218,939 of 1,478,351entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 5 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 15 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“روانشناسی بالینی ارشد| بهنام یوسفی” (@Clinical_yousefi), 526 subscribers as measured 15 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Clinical_yousefi.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.