The Brief Child and Family Phone Interview (BCFPI): 2. Usefulness in screening for child and adolescent psychopatholog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examines the use of the Brief Child and Family Phone Interview (BCFPI) to screen for childhood psychiatric disorder based on Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (DISC-IV) classifications of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), separation anxiety (SAD), generalized anxiety (GAD) and major depression (MDD). METHODS: Data for analysis come from a sample of 399 children and adolescents aged 5-17 years old referred to child mental health outpatient services in three Ontario cities. Mothers were administered the BCFPI on three occasions: baseline, 2 and 13 months; and the DISC-IV on two occasions: 1 and 12 months. RESULTS: Based on kappa, test-retest reliability for disorders classified by the BCFPI exceeded .50 for all conditions except MDD (.45). In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, area-under-the-curve (AUC) estimates for BCFPI scale score associations with DISC-IV classifications of disorder exceeded .80 for CD, ODD, ADHD and SAD; and were lower for GAD (.76) and MDD (.75). In stratified analyses, there were no statistically significant differences in AUC estimates for boys versus girls and 5 to 11 versus 12 to 17-year-olds. CONCLUSIONS: Classifications of childhood disorder derived from the BCFPI provided a reasonable approximation to disorders classified by the DISC-IV administered by lay interviewers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".