Developing and Implementing a Web-Based Branching Logic Survey to Support Psychiatric Crisis Evaluations of Individuals With Developmental Disabilities: Qualitative Study and Evaluation of Validity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with developmental disabilities (DD) experience increased rates of emotional and behavioral crises that necessitate assessment and intervention. Psychiatric disorders can contribute to crises; however, screening measures developed for the general population are inadequate for those with DD. Medical conditions can exacerbate crises and merit evaluation. Screening tools using checklist formats, even when designed for DD, are too limited in depth and scope for crisis assessments. The Sources of Distress survey implements a web-based branching logic format to screen for common psychiatric and medical conditions experienced by individuals with DD by querying caregiver knowledge and observations. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to (1) describe the initial survey development, (2) report on focus group and expert review processes and findings, and (3) present results from the survey's clinical implementation and evaluation of validity. METHODS: Sources of Distress was reviewed by focus groups and clinical experts; this feedback informed survey revisions. The survey was subsequently implemented in clinical settings to augment providers' psychiatric and medical history taking. Informal and formal consults followed the completion of Sources of Distress for a subset of individuals. A records review was performed to identify working diagnoses established during these consults. RESULTS: Focus group members (n=17) expressed positive feedback overall about the survey's content and provided specific recommendations to add categories and items. The survey was completed for 231 individuals with DD in the clinical setting (n=161, 69.7% men and boys; mean age 17.7, SD 10.3; range 2-65 years). Consults were performed for 149 individuals (n=102, 68.5% men and boys; mean age 18.9, SD 10.9 years), generating working diagnoses to compare survey screening results. Sources of Distress accuracy rates were 91% (95% CI 85%-95%) for posttraumatic stress disorder, 87% (95% CI 81%-92%) for anxiety, 87% (95% CI 81%-92%) for episodic expansive mood and bipolar disorder, 82% (95% CI 75%-87%) for psychotic disorder, 79% (95% CI 71%-85%) for unipolar depression, and 76% (95% CI 69%-82%) for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. While no specific survey items or screening algorithm existed for unspecified mood disorder and disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, these conditions were caregiver-reported and working diagnoses for 11.7% (27/231) and 16.8% (25/149) of individuals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers described Sources of Distress as an acceptable tool for sharing their knowledge and insights about individuals with DD who present in crisis. As a screening tool, this survey demonstrates good accuracy. However, better differentiation among mood disorders is needed, including the addition of items and screening algorithm for unspecified mood disorder and disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. Additional validation efforts are necessary to include a more geographically diverse population and reevaluate mood disorder differentiation. Future study is merited to investigate the survey's impact on the psychiatric and medical management of distress in individuals with DD.
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 | 0.052 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".