When clients and practitioners have differing views of risk: Benchmarks for improving assessment and practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The assessment of risk is a top priority within routine counselling and psychotherapy services. However, staff often receive little training in this area. Research suggests that differences between practitioner‐rated and client self‐report assessments are to be expected and has indicated that the rates of difference can be relatively high (i.e., >50%). However, no national benchmarks have yet been presented which allow both practitioners and services to assess their degree of difference between client‐ and therapist‐ratings of risk. This study uses data drawn from the CORE National Research Database and the risk domain of the CORE‐OM ( n =25338) to address this issue. Percentage of difference in assessment rates are presented to enable services to compare their rates of difference with those obtained in other services. The CORE‐OM risk domain identified 44% of clients as ‘at risk’ while the practitioner assessment identified 10% of clients as being ‘at risk’. For the overall sample, 18% of clients were classified by the practitioner as presenting no risk when the CORE‐OM risk domain identified them at risk. There were large variations between services. The practical use and implications of the results presented are discussed by managers of NHS primary care counselling services.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it