Evaluating the parent–adolescent communication toolkit: Usability and preliminary content effectiveness of an online intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim This study aimed to assess the Parent–Adolescent Communication Toolkit, an online intervention designed to help improve parent communication with their adolescents. Participant preferences for two module delivery systems (sequential and unrestricted module access) were identified. Design Usability assessment of thePACTintervention was completed using pre‐test and posttest comparisons. Usability data, including participant completion and satisfaction ratings were examined. Methods Parents (N = 18) of adolescents were randomized to a sequential or unrestricted chapter access group. Parent participants completed pre‐test measures, thePACTintervention and posttest measures. Participants provided feedback for the intervention to improve modules and provided usability ratings. Adolescent pre‐ and posttest ratings were evaluated. Results Usability ratings were high and parent feedback was positive. The sequential module access groups rated the intervention content higher and completed more content than the unrestricted chapter access group, indicating support for the sequential access design. Parent mean posttest communication scores were significantly higher (p < .05) than pre‐test scores. No significant differences were detected for adolescent participants. Findings suggest that the Parent–Adolescent Communication Toolkit has potential to improve parent–adolescent communication but further effectiveness assessment is required.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".