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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".