A Method for Analyzing Videotaped Genetic Counseling Sessions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the development and evaluation of a multi-item scale for analyzing the genetic counseling process, the Manchester Observation Code (MOC) for genetic counseling. The instrument is specific to the field of genetic counseling and is designed for analysis of the communication between counselor and client. Coding is done directly from videotaped sessions. Because communication is the means by which genetic counseling is accomplished, the method measures four relevant components of communication: (1) grammatical form, (2) purpose, (3) subject, and (4) cue source. The instrument enables an observer to code the counselor's statements into these four components. Three videotaped sessions were used to measure interrater reliability, or the consistency of rating for each of the four communication domains using this method. Three videotaped sessions were also used to measure test-retest reliability, or the consistency of the designed method from one time to another. A total of 21 videotaped sessions were tested using the method. A statistical measure of reliability established consistency of the designed method; Cohen's kappa yielded 0.7 for interrater reliability and 0.79 for test-retest reliability. These findings suggest this instrument may be used to identify important elements of the genetic counseling process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".