MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119848026 · doi:10.1177/1049731512459966

Development and Initial Evaluation of the Cyber-Counseling Objective Structured Clinical Examination (COSCE)

2012· article· en· W2119848026 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Social Work Practice · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInter-rater reliabilityPsychologyCompetence (human resources)Exploratory factor analysisRating scaleInternal consistencyApplied psychologyConstruct validityPsychometricsClinical psychologyMedical educationMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: This study developed and validated the Cyber-Counseling Objective Structured Clinical Examination (COSCE), a method and tool used to assess the competence level of trainees and professionals who practice cyber-counseling. Method: The COSCE’s development involved the creation of a cyber-counseling performance rating scale and two simulated client scenarios, and the recruitment and training of three raters. The COSCE was tested on six masters of social work students and six seasoned cyber-counseling practitioners. Results: We examined the COSCE’s internal consistency, interrater reliability, and interclient reliability. In addition, we assessed the construct validity through exploratory factor analysis and known-groups validation method. Conclusions: With further improvement, the COSCE can be a reliable and valid tool in assessing the competence of cyber-counseling practitioners.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.379
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it