The Development of the DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview-Fidelity Instrument (CFI-FI): A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the development of the Cultural Formulation Interview-Fidelity Instrument (CFI-FI) which assesses clinician fidelity to the DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI). The CFI consists of a manualized set of standard questions that can precede every psychiatric evaluation. It is based on the DSM-IV Outline for Cultural Formulation, the cross-cultural assessment with the most evidence in psychiatric training. Using the New York sample of the DSM-5 CFI field trial, two independent raters created and finalized items for the CFI-FI based on six audio-taped and transcribed interviews. The raters then used the final CFI-FI to rate the remaining 23 interviews. Inter-rater reliability ranged from .73 to 1 for adherence items and .52 to 1 for competence items. The development of the CFI-FI can help researchers and administrators determine whether the CFI has been implemented with fidelity, permitting future intervention research.
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 | 0.061 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".