A biopsychosocial vignette for case conceptualization in dementia (VIG-Dem): development and pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability to identify biological, social, and psychological issues for people with dementia is an important skill for healthcare professionals. Therefore, valid and reliable measures are needed to assess this ability. This study involves the development of a vignette style measure to capture the extent to which health professionals use "Biopsychosocial" thinking in dementia care (VIG-Dem), based on the framework of the model developed by Spector and Orrell (2010). METHODS: The development process consisted of Phase 1: Developing and refining the vignettes; Phase 2: Field testing (N = 9), and Phase 3: A pilot study to assess reliability and validity (N = 131). RESULTS: The VIG-Dem, consisting of two vignettes with open-ended questions and a standardized scoring scheme, was developed. Evidence for the good inter-rater reliability, convergent validity, and test-retest reliability were established. CONCLUSIONS: The VIG-Dem has good psychometric properties and may provide a useful tool in dementia care research and practice.
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 | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".