Digital Intervention Barriers Scale–7 (DIBS-7): Development, Evaluation, and Preliminary Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The translation of mental health services into digital formats, deemed digital mental health interventions (DMHIs), has the potential to address long-standing obstacles to accessing care. However, DMHIs have barriers of their own that impact enrollment, adherence, and attrition in these programs. Unlike in traditional face-to-face therapy, there is a paucity of standardized and validated measures of barriers in DMHIs. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we describe the preliminary development and evaluation of such a scale, the Digital Intervention Barriers Scale-7 (DIBS-7). METHODS: Following an iterative QUAN → QUAL mixed methods approach, item generation was guided by qualitative analysis of feedback from participants (n=259) who completed a DMHI trial for anxiety and depression and identified barriers related to self-motivation, ease of use, acceptability, and comprehension of tasks. Item refinement was achieved through DMHI expert review. A final item pool was administered to 559 treatment completers (mean age 23.02 years; 438/559, 78.4% female; 374/559, 69.9% racially or ethnically minoritized). Exploratory factor analyses and confirmatory factor analyses were estimated to determine the psychometric properties of the measure. Finally, criterion-related validity was examined by estimating partial correlations between the DIBS-7 mean score and constructs related to treatment engagement in DMHIs. RESULTS: Statistical analyses estimated a 7-item unidimensional scale with high internal consistency (α=.82, ω=0.89). Preliminary criterion-related validity was supported by significant partial correlations between the DIBS-7 mean score and treatment expectations (pr=-0.25), number of modules with activity (pr=-0.55), number of weekly check-ins (pr=-0.28), and treatment satisfaction (pr=-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these results provide preliminary support for the use of the DIBS-7 as a potentially useful short scale for clinicians and researchers interested in measuring an important variable often associated with treatment adherence and outcomes in DMHIs.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".