MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110918029 · doi:10.1002/imhj.21898

Feasibility of training service providers on the AMBIANCE‐Brief measure for use in community settings

2020· article· en· W3110918029 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfant Mental Health Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à MontréalAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Service providerTraining (meteorology)Service (business)MedicineNursingMedical educationBusinessComputer scienceData miningMarketingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Atypical Maternal Behavior Instrument for Assessment and Classification—Brief (AMBIANCE‐Brief) was developed to provide a clinically useful and psychometrically sound assessment of disrupted parenting behavior for community practitioners. With prior evidence of this tool's reliability and validity in laboratory settings, this study aimed to determine whether providers from family service agencies could become reliable in the use of the level of disrupted communication following a brief training. Providers ( N = 46) from three agency sites participated in a 2‐day AMBIANCE‐Brief training and, at the end of the training, coded eight videotaped mother–child interactions. Novice participant coding was compared to expert consensus ratings using intraclass correlations. On average, participants’ interrater agreement was good (ICC mean = .84, SD = 0.10), with 89% meeting the reliability standards of ICC ≥ .70. In response to queries, 100% of participants indicated that they would recommend the AMBIANCE‐Brief training to their colleagues, 85% reported that the AMBIANCE‐Brief measure would be useful or very useful for their clinical practice, and 56% of participant clinicians believed that parents would find the measure acceptable or very acceptable for integration into intervention or support planning. Altogether, these findings speak to the feasibility of using the AMBIANCE‐Brief in community settings. Future studies are needed in diverse clinical and community contexts to evaluate whether use of this assessment tool can inform more targeted interventions tailored to the specific needs of families.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.230 · 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