Feasibility of training service providers on the AMBIANCE‐Brief measure for use in community settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 (ICCmean = .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.
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 | 0.044 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".