MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948037761 · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201800581

Using Fidelity Measurement to Assess Quality of Early Psychosis Intervention Services in Ontario

2019· article· en· W2948037761 on OpenAlexaffabout
Janet Durbin, Avra Selick, Gordon Langill, Chiachen Cheng, Suzanne Archie, Shannel Butt, Donald Addington

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Services · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsCanadian Mental Health Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFidelityScale (ratio)Intervention (counseling)Rating scaleSample (material)PsychologyProgram evaluationPsychiatryComputer scienceDevelopmental psychologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The First Episode Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (FEPS-FS) is a validated measure of program delivery in relation to international standards. This study assessed fidelity in Ontario programs and the utility of the FEPS-FS for program improvement. METHODS: Assessments were conducted in a volunteer sample of nine early psychosis intervention (EPI) programs. Thirty components of care were each rated on a 5-point scale; a rating of 4 indicates satisfactory performance. Trained assessor teams conducted site visits, and ratings were made by consensus. RESULTS: Program mean fidelity ratings ranged from 3.1 to 4.4 and exceeded 4 in five programs. Across the programs, item mean fidelity ratings ranged from 2.1 to 5 and exceeded 4 for 14 of 30 items. CONCLUSIONS: The FEPS-FS captured variation in program implementation and provided a baseline for measuring change. Additions to the scale are planned to address components of the Ontario EPI standards not covered by the FEPS-FS.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric ServicesSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207