The Telephone Interview Probe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With increasing interest in studies evaluating treatment outcome in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), there is a need for treatment-sensitive instruments that are feasible, yield valid and reliable scores, and measure outcome in a “time-locked” and “situation- and symptom-specific” manner. These instruments are needed to evaluate the outcome for which the treatment is targeted at specific settings (e.g., school), specific times of day (e.g., the late afternoon or early evening medication dose), and specific symptoms (e.g., hyperactivity). The Telephone Interview Probe (TIP) was developed to meet this need for outcome research with children with ADHD. The present study evaluated the feasibility, reliability, validity, and treatment sensitivity of scores on the TIP scales (Inattention, Hyperactivity-Impulsivity, Oppositional Behavior, and Problem Situation). Psychometric properties of the TIP were evaluated using classical test theory, as well as generalizability theory. The TIP proved to possess all the attributes required for use in large-scale treatment studies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.028 |
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".