Fit for purpose: Conception and psychometric evaluation of developmentally appropriate measures to assess functional recovery in first-episode psychosis across geo-cultural contexts.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Given the paucity of functional recovery measures for young people with psychosis, we developed and conducted psychometric testing of the Functional Outcomes Interview (FOI) and the Roles and Aspirations Among Youth scale (RAY; a much-needed patient-reported outcome measure). METHOD: Both measures were developed in English, Tamil, and French through discussions with professionals, participants, and families at early psychosis programs in Canada and India. The FOI assesses the number and tenure of functional roles and allows the nuanced assessment of each role in terms of performance, need for support, and quality of social contacts. The roles include work, school, household responsibilities, parenting/caregiving, and efforts to return to work/school. The RAY is a self-report of current roles and future aspirations. Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, factorial validity, and concurrent validity for the RAY; and inter-rater reliability (IRR), internal consistency, and concurrent validity for the FOI were assessed. RESULTS: The RAY had adequate internal consistency and temporal stability and was unidimensional in factor analysis. The FOI had acceptable IRR and internal consistency, as evinced by comparable performance ratings across functional roles. Significant associations between our novel measures and well-established measures of functioning and negative symptoms indicate concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The FOI and RAY were designed to be youth friendly, assess aspirations, and acknowledge individuals as desiring and holding multiple roles. They thus represent a significant advancement in assessing functional recovery in first-episode psychosis. Having been tested in two distinct settings, these measures show promise for wider deployment across geo-cultural contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".