MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Brief Child and Family Phone Interview (BCFPI): 1. Rationale, development, and description of a computerized children’s mental health intake and outcome assessment tool

2008· article· en· W2159224555 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charles E. Cunningham, Michael H. Boyle, Sunjin Hong, Peter Pettingill, Donna Bohaychuk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMental healthConfirmatory factor analysisAnxietyPopulationStructural equation modelingSeparation anxiety disorderConduct disorderTelephone interviewClinical psychologyPsychiatryGeneralized anxiety disorderPsychometricsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study describes the development of the Brief Child and Family Phone Interview (BCFPI) - a computer-assisted telephone interview which adapts the revised Ontario Child Health Study's (OCHS-R) parent, teacher, and youth self-report scales for administration as intake screening and treatment outcome measures in children's mental health services. It focuses on the factor structure of the BCFPI's hypothesized parent-reported child mental health scales describing attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), separation anxiety disorder (SAD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and major depression (MDD). METHODS: Data for the analysis come from an OCHS-R measurement study that included two groups of children and adolescents selected from the same urban area: a general population sample (n = 1,712) and a clinic-referred sample (n = 1,512); and a third sample that was enlisted in a province-wide implementation study of clinic-referred 6- to 18-year-olds (n = 56,825). We used confirmatory factor analysis to assess the factor structure of the BCFPI scales in different populations and to test measurement equivalence across selected groups. RESULTS: Despite the strong constraints imposed on the measurement models, estimates of model fit across the three samples were comparable in magnitude and approached the cut-offs suggested for the GFI and CFI (>.9) and RMSEA (<.05). Measurement equivalence was demonstrated between the OCHS-R clinic and provincial implementation samples. Within the implementation sample, the factor structure of the BCFPI scales was equivalent for boys versus girls and for 6- to 12- versus 13- to 18-year-olds. A companion paper examines the test-retest reliability, sensitivity, specificity, and validity of these BCFPI scales when used for screening. CONCLUSION: This project supports the feasibility and acceptability of a computer-assisted telephone interview for assessing emotional-behavioral problems of children and adolescents referred to children's mental health services.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations135
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Psychology and PsychiatrySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207