Rewiring efficacy studies to increase their relevance to routine practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current efficacy literature relies heavily on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) as the gold standard patient self-report measure. In contrast, the evaluation of psychological therapies in routine practice relies heavily on the CORE-OM. Although the two measures are conceptually distinct, they have been shown to be highly correlated. This suggests the possibility of replacing one measure with the other - a procedure we refer to as rewiring - in service of making the results of efficacy studies using the BDI have greater relevance of practitioners who routinely use the CORE-OM. We tested this proposition using transformation tables (Leach et al., in press) to convert BDI-I scores into CORE-OM scores and reran the analysis of a major efficacy study of depression - the Second Sheffield Psychotherapy Project (Shapiro et al., 1994). Results showed a near perfect replication of the original results and examples of benchmarks concerning the overall effects of treatment as well as differences between treatments are provided against which outcomes in routine practice can be contrasted. The implications for bridging efficacy and effectiveness research are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.503 | 0.777 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".