MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366448130 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.20.002

A Theory-Driven Approach to Evaluating a Communication Intervention

2005· article· en· W4366448130 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Katherine S. McGilton, Mary Fox, Souraya Sidani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoMinistry of Health and Long Term Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialPsychological interventionPsychologyApplied psychologyNursingManagement sciencePsychotherapistMedicineEngineeringDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Evaluating interventions in the practice setting calls for an alternative approach to the traditional randomized controlled trial (RCT), as its feasibility and generalizability, and clinical utility of its results are being questioned. The theory-driven approach (TDA) to evaluation, as an alternative to the RCT, attempts to account for the realities of practice. The TDA specifies the causal processes underlying the intervention effects, and identifies its expected outcomes as well as factors that affect treatment processes, such as patient, intervener, and setting characteristics. In this article, the TDA to intervention evaluation is presented as a means of designing and conducting evaluation. The TDA is discussed at the conceptual level and illustrated with examples from a pilot study that examined the effectiveness of a communication enhancement intervention designed to improve the communication skills of nursing staff in a complex continuing care (CCC) facility.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.518
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.027 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207