Fidelity Assessment Tool for a Dementia Carers’ Group-Psychotherapy Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: The systematic evaluation of a practitioner’s adherence to and competence in delivering psychotherapeutic interventions can be complex. This study describes the development of a fidelity assessment tool for the Reitman Centre CARERS Program (RCCP), a carer group-psychotherapy intervention with multiple didactic and clinical components. The tool’s value in informing psychotherapy training and best practices for practitioners from diverse professional settings is examined. Methods: The RCCP Fidelity Assessment Tool (RCCP-FAT) was developed following an iterative process of item writing and checking. Seven components of the RCCP—Group Structure, Dementia Education, Problem-Solving Techniques, Therapeutic Simulation, Vertical Cohesion, Horizontal Cohesion, and Overall Global Rating—were assessed, with three to eight items, and a “global score” assigned to each. Fifteen trained raters were paired up to rate 36 RCCP sessions using the RCCP-FAT. Rater agreement, correlation between itemized and global scores, and correlation between global ratings and RCCP participants’ satisfaction were calculated. Results: A total of 1188 RCCP-FAT items were rated by each of the two rater groups. Rater agreement was calculated to be 54.3% (κ = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.02681–0.3729). A positive correlation was found between the itemized and global scoring for four RCCP components evaluated (R = 0.833 to 0.929; p < 0.01). The global score and the participants’ satisfaction with “Simulation” was also positively correlated (R = 0.626, p < 0.01). Conclusions: The study provided evidence for fair rater agreement for all RCCP-FAT assessment items. More importantly, the process of developing the tool systematically crystallized the clinical elements of the RCCP and helped to standardize the training methods by creating a framework for providing feedback to learners that matches the items on the RCCP-FAT. The use of the RCCP-FAT to guide the training and mentoring of incoming group leaders is essential in the scaling and dissemination of a complex training method like the RCCP to ensure fidelity to the original evidence-based intervention.
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 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".