Interrater Reliability of the Fitness Interview Test across 4 Professional Groups
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the interrater reliability of the Fitness Interview Test (FIT), revised edition, a semistructured interview that assesses fitness to stand trial. METHOD: Physicians, forensic psychologists, nurses, and graduate students in psychology were trained in the FIT, and they subsequently viewed 2 videotaped interviews of actual fitness assessments. Using the FIT, they rated the fitness of each defendant portrayed in the videotapes. RESULTS: For overall judgment of fitness, the average intraclass correlation based on the full samples of raters was found to be 0.98, and for most items on the FIT, intraclass correlations fell within the 0.80 s and 0.90 s. Reliability estimates were high across professional groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study provides further support for the psychometric properties of the FIT, as well as for the ability of various professionals to conduct reliable fitness assessments using the FIT.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it