Psychometric evaluation of a multi‐dimensional measure of satisfaction with behavioral interventions
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
Treatment satisfaction is recognized as an essential aspect in the evaluation of an intervention's effectiveness, but there is no measure that provides for its comprehensive assessment with regard to behavioral interventions. Informed by a conceptualization generated from a literature review, we developed a measure that covers several domains of satisfaction with behavioral interventions. In this paper, we briefly review its conceptualization and describe the Multi-Dimensional Treatment Satisfaction Measure (MDTSM) subscales. Satisfaction refers to the appraisal of the treatment's process and outcome attributes. The MDTSM has 11 subscales assessing treatment process and outcome attributes: treatment components' suitability and utility, attitude toward treatment, desire for continued treatment use, therapist competence and interpersonal style, format and dose, perceived benefits of the health problem and everyday functioning, discomfort, and attribution of outcomes to treatment. The MDTSM was completed by persons (N = 213) in the intervention group in a large trial of a multi-component behavioral intervention for insomnia within 1 week following treatment completion. The MDTSM's subscales demonstrated internal consistency reliability (α: .65 - .93) and validity (correlated with self-reported adherence and perceived insomnia severity at post-test). The MDTSM subscales can be used to assess satisfaction with behavioral interventions and point to aspects of treatments that are viewed favorably or unfavorably.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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