MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288525815 · doi:10.1186/s13012-019-0878-2

Proceedings from the 11th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation

2019· article· en· W4288525815 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueImplementation Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWomen's College HospitalPublic Health OntarioCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersPenn State College of MedicineCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institute of Mental HealthChildren’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research InstitutePennsylvania State UniversityUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of PennsylvaniaFlorida Department of Health
KeywordsHealth administrationHealth informaticsMedicineHealth services researchPublic healthLibrary scienceNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:The growing number of students with autism has resulted in a proliferation of computer-assisted interventions (CAI) to increase treatment access.There is little rigorous study of how introducing this new technology affects teachers' use of existing evidence-based practice (EBP).Teachers may, inaccurately, see CAI as replacing EBP, and therefore deimplement EBP.Conversely, they may use CAI to implement EBP with some students while others are occupied on the computer.We conducted a mixed methods study to examine the effects of introducing CAI on teachers' use of EBP.Methods: We conducted a randomized field trial of one CAI, Teach-Town, and found that it was not effective in improving student outcomes.We then examined how its implementation affected teachers' use of two one-to-one EBP and one classroom-wide EBP, visual schedules.Seventy-three classrooms were randomized to TeachTown or control.All classrooms received ongoing training and coaching in the three EBP prior to and throughout the trial.Teachers' EBP use was measured monthly.Hierarchical models were used to test changes in EBP use over the year.Semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers in the TeachTown condition at the end of the year, using a modified grounded theory approach, to explain the quantitative findings.Findings: During the course of the school year, teachers in the control group reported significant increases in their use of one-to-one EBP (p's < .05).While teachers in the TeachTown group showed higher use of these practices at baseline, their use decreased slightly during the course of the year, such that growth trajectories differed significantly between the groups (p's < .05).There were no differences in use of visual schedules.In qualitative analysis, teachers revealed that they thought that TeachTown was more effective and much easier to use than one-to-one instruction, was appealing to students and parents, addressed staffing shortages, and helped teachers manage challenging behaviors.Implications for D&I Research: New practices, introduced with the best intentions, can unintendedly result in deimplementation of other EBP that they were not meant to replace.Practitioners' perceptions of intervention characteristics may trump information about effectiveness, with ease of use, consumer appeal, and ability to address urgent concerns being most important.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.026
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.367 · 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