MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404045374 · doi:10.1080/08927936.2024.2418700

Initial Psychometric Evaluation of a Service Dog Attraction Assessment Grid for Youth With ASD and Related Disorders

2024· article· en· W4404045374 on OpenAlex
Geneviève Goulet, Nathe François, Noël Champagne, Nicolas St-Pierre, Éric St-Pierre, Pierrich Plusquellec

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthrozoös · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec
KeywordsGridAttractionPsychologyService (business)Clinical psychologyApplied psychologyBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animal-assisted interventions, such as the use of service dogs, represent an increasingly popular therapeutic avenue for youths with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Before engaging anyone in this type of intervention, it could be justified to assess their level of attraction to animals. However, this aspect is rarely documented, and no existing instrument suits the specific challenges of ASD clients and the reality of the clinical setting. This paper describes the use and preliminary validation of an observation-based assessment tool developed by the Mira Foundation to evaluate the level of attraction toward dogs. The 9-item scale has been used by the team throughout the evaluation process of 1,010 potential candidates for a service dog. It is designed to describe and quantify observed behaviors during a standardized encounter with a non-familiar dog. The participants were aged between 2 and 26 years old (mean age = 8.13, SD = 4.3 years) and 87% had an ASD diagnosis. A total of 323 participants were assessed by a second rater, which allowed for interrater reliability analyses on each item of the scale. The factorial structure of the scale was determined by applying an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on one-half of the sample, followed by a cross-validation study consisting of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the other half. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal consistency. Based on weighted kappa statistics, interrater reliability showed strong agreement for individual items (Kw between 0.66 and 0.85). A two-factor solution was produced with EFA and confirmed through CFA. A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89 when items from the first factor (attitude) were combined and 0.92 for the second factor (interaction) indicated good internal consistency for the identified subscales. These findings support the reliability of this assessment tool and its potential use in clinical and research domains.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.389 · 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