Fidelity Assessment of Peer-Delivered Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Postpartum Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Fidelity assessment of peer-administered interventions (PAIs) by expert therapists can be costly and limit scalability. This study's objective was to determine whether peer facilitators could assess the fidelity of peer-delivered group cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for postpartum depression as effectively as an expert psychiatrist or a trained graduate student. METHODS: Intervention adherence and competence were assessed by three peers (N=9 sessions) and by one expert psychiatrist and one graduate student (N=18 sessions). Interrater reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: ICCs were good to excellent (0.88-0.98) for adherence and competence ratings among the three types of raters (psychiatrist vs. peers, psychiatrist vs. student, and student vs. peers). CONCLUSIONS: Trained peers may be able to reliably rate the fidelity of a PAI for postpartum depression. This preliminary study represents the first step toward peer-led feedback as an alternative to expert-led supervision of peer-delivered group CBT for postpartum depression.
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 | 0.018 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".