Use of a Psychometric Instrument as a Referral Process for the Required Level of Specialization of Health and Social Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In Q uébec, services of people with intellectual disability ( ID ) are divided into three levels of care based on the W orld H ealth O rganization model. Currently, no standardized tool is used to assess the level of specialization of care required by persons with ID in the province despite the M inistry of S ocial and H ealth S ervices' reference framework, which stipulates that services should be fair and easily accessible to all. The present study examined potential tools to address this situation. The scores on the S upports I ntensity S cale‐ F rench version ( SIS‐F ), A daptive B ehavior A ssessment S ystem‐ II , and S cales of I ndependent B ehavior‐ R evised ( SIB‐R ) (Part 2) of 30 participants with ID were examined in conjunction with the required level of specialization of services, as determined by an expert committee. Scores on these scales were not linearly related to the required level of care. This indicates that scores cannot be used to determine if a person needs services from the primary, secondary, or tertiary care facility. However, significant differences were observed between the primary and tertiary levels on the E xceptional B ehavioral S upport N eeds scale of the SIS‐F and the SIB‐R Part 2. The study shows that the expert committee was more successful in making this determination than a standardized instrument. The instruments used in the present study, not designed for this purpose, were insufficient. Nonetheless, results underline the importance of factoring in challenging behaviors in the assessment of service needs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".