American and Canadian Perceptions of the Acceptability of Conjoint Behavioural Consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the efficacy and acceptability of conjoint behaviour consultation (CBC) is well documented in the US, this method of intervention has not been widely studied in Canada. Thus, this study was designed to examine the perceptions of school psychologists and parents in Canada regarding the acceptability of CBC, as well as how consultant variables such as training and theoretical orientation impact upon these viewpoints. First, a survey was distributed to Canadian school psychologists and the results were compared to those of a previous study of American psychologists. Second, a similar questionnaire was completed by Canadian parents. Canadian psychologists rated CBC highly in regards to procedural acceptability and situational acceptability. Furthermore, CBC was rated as the preferred intervention for three common problem types: academic, behavioural and social-emotional. Direct service was rated as the second most-preferred method across problem types, followed by parent-only and teacher-only consultation. The perceptions of the Canadian psychologists were highly consistent with those of psychologists in the US. In both Canada and the US, the majority of respondents rated CBC as highly acceptable, and reported using a behavioural consultative framework. Parents likewise rated CBC as a highly acceptable intervention modality for their children. It is recommended that future research into the use of CBC in Canada, and in other countries, focus on clarifying the current practice of consultation and targeting areas for improvement, thus improving service delivery.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".