The validation of the Western Canada Waiting List Children’s Mental Health-Priority Criteria Score Instrument: 2002 – 2015 results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the validity of the Western Canada Waiting List Children’s Mental Health-Priority Criteria Score (WCWLCMH-PCS) Instrument.Methods: The WCWL-CMH-PCS Instrument was developed in order to prioritize the delivery of child and youth mental health (CYMH) services through standardized measures of urgency. We draw on two data sets describing the PCS scores among patients who have sought CYMH care. The first data set was collected during the first phase of pilot testing for the WCWL-CMH-PCS Instrument (from January – June 2000), during which trained intake workers applied the PCS items to 817 patients aged 5-18 years throughout the three western provinces. The second data set comprises the application of a refined version of the WCWL-CMH-PCS Instrument to 22,013 patients aged 0-19 throughout the Calgary Health Region from 2002 – 2015. For our analysis, we compare the two samples in order to determine the percentage of patients that correspond to specific risk categories for each priority score.Results: For the overall pairwise correlation by item, r = 0.96 and is statistically significant at the .05 level (p < .05). We discovered that there are small differences in the assessments of urgency for access to specialized care, severity of symptoms, family and social factors, and the expected results of care between the two samples. The absolute difference per item is not greater than 12.0%.Conclusions: Overall, our results support the empirical applicability and usefulness of the WCWL-CMH-PCS Instrument within CYMH clinical settings.
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 | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".