Development and validation of a fidelity instrument for Cognitive Adaptation Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Cognitive Adaptation Training (CAT) is a psychosocial intervention with demonstrated effectiveness. However, no validated fidelity instrument is available. In this study, a CAT Fidelity Scale was developed and its psychometric properties, including interrater reliability and internal consistency, were evaluated. Methods: The fidelity scale was developed in a multidisciplinary collaboration between international research groups using the Delphi method. Four Delphi rounds were organized to reach consensus for the items included in the scale. To examine the psychometric properties of the scale, data from a large cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating the implementation of CAT in clinical practice was used. Fidelity assessors conducted 73 fidelity reviews at four mental health institutions in the Netherlands. Results: After three Delphi rounds, consensus was reached on a 44-item CAT Fidelity Scale. After administration of the scale, 24 items were removed in round four resulting in a 20-item fidelity scale. Psychometric properties of the 20-item CAT Fidelity Scale shows a fair interrater reliability and an excellent internal consistency. Conclusions: The CAT fidelity scale in its current form is useful for both research purposes as well as for individual health professionals to monitor their own adherence to the protocol. Future research needs to focus on improvement of items and formulating qualitative anchor point to the items to increase generalizability and psychometric properties of the scale. The described suggestions for improvement provide a good starting point for further development.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".