Fidelity Assessment of Peer-Delivered Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Postpartum Depression
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.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it