Intervention Fidelity of a Volunteer-Led Montessori-Based Intervention in a Canadian Long-Term Care Home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Montessori-based interventions (MBIs) were developed to promote guided participation in meaningful activities by people with dementia patients. In this study, we assessed nursing home volunteers' fidelity to an MBI, relying primarily on a qualitative descriptive design. We completed a deductive content analysis of eight volunteer interviews using the Conceptual Framework for Intervention Fidelity. We also calculated average volunteer and resident scores on the Visiting Quality Questionnaire (VQQ), which assesses volunteers' and residents' perceptions of visits. We found good evidence that volunteers attended scheduled visits, made use of pre-designed activities, and attended to training recommendations. Most reported enjoying the visits (VQQ $ \overline{x} $ = 6.12, standard deviation [SD] = 0.75) and receiving a positive response from residents (VQQ $ \overline{x} $ = 5.46, SD = 0.88). Nevertheless, use of pre-designed activities and response to the MBI was lower for volunteers working with residents who had late-stage dementia. Therefore, overall, fidelity depended on the cognitive status of the resident.
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 | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".