Development and Psychometric Properties of the Family Life Interview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study describes the development and trialling of the Family Life Interview (FLI), a clinical tool designed to examine sustainability of family routines. Materials and Methods The FLI, a self‐report instrument completed by a parent within a semi‐structured practitioner – parent interview, was administered to 118 parents, with re‐test interviews being conducted with 39 parents. Rasch analysis was used to examine scale structure, evidence for construct validity and precision of measurement of the FLI items. Logistic regression was used to explore the contribution of the FLI to predicting out‐of‐home placement scores. Results The FLI produced valid data on the sustainability of family routines. The FLI was found to be useful for predicting families at risk of seeking out‐of‐home placement driven by crisis. Conclusions The FLI offers practitioners a psychometrically sound instrument designed to illuminate the particularity of each family’s circumstances, critical to developing interventions for increasing the sustainability of family routines.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".