A RESEARCHER–PRACTITIONER COLLABORATION ON MEASURING SUCCESS IN ELDER MISTREATMENT INTERVENTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the major barriers to conducting elder mistreatment intervention research is a lack of understanding on how to measure outcomes of success. Within the context of the RISE project, this presentation will describe a highly collaborative process between researchers and RISE practitioners (supervisor and advocates) to develop a measurement instrument that meets validated research standards as well as the needs of practitioners who work directly on elder mistreatment cases and are responsible for administering the tool. Informed by ecological-systems, relational, and client-centered perspectives, RISE is a conceptually driven, evidence-based, community-based elder mistreatment response program that works with older adults at risk of or experiencing EM, as well as their alleged harmers, their relationship, and their surrounding social support systems. This presentation will describe the process of developing an appropriate measurement tool through weekly meetings over a 6-month period, from a starting point characterized by widely discrepant instrument expectations across the researcher-practitioner dyad toward an ending that achieved mutual agreement. This process required high levels of honesty, openness, patience, and humor among members. The final version of the measurement tool will be presented, which measures intervention outcome constructs of older adult social support, self-efficacy, life satisfaction, and perceived stress, as well as practitioner-client working alliance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 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".