Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intervention fidelity refers to strategies that practitioners and researchers use to monitor, enhance, or evaluate the accuracy and consistency of the delivery of an intervention to ensure that it is implemented according to how it was planned. The purpose of the authors in this article was to evaluate intervention fidelity in the psychosocial oncology intervention effectiveness research. Twenty-eight studies located in a previous systematic review on psychosocial oncology intervention effectiveness comprised the sample for this research. A treatment fidelity checklist was applied to each study independently by each author (MP & PB). Percent agreement between raters ranged from 68% to 100% (M = 89%). Overall, the mean proportion of adherence was 0.57 (SD 0.12), which may be considered to be moderate fidelity. Critical examination and applicability of the checklist in examining and assessing intervention fidelity were highlighted and discussed. Overall, intervention fidelity was adequately addressed in the psychosocial oncology intervention effectiveness research, and integrity was confirmed in the majority of studies reviewed. Suggestions for future psychosocial oncology effectiveness research were made.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".