MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7044100531

Using the internet to train therapists: A randomised comparison of two scalable methods

2017· article· en· W7044100531 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicX-ray Diffraction in Crystallography
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Randomized controlled trialCognitionMean differenceSignificant differenceThe Internet
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p><strong>Background:</strong> One of the major barriers to the dissemination and implementation of psychological treatments is the scarcity of suitably trained therapists. The currently accepted method of training is not scalable. Recently, a scalable form of training, Web-centered training, has been shown to have promise.</p> <p><strong>Objective:</strong> The goal of our research was to conduct a randomized comparison of the relative effects of independent and supported Web-centered training on therapist competence and investigate the persistence of the effects.</p> <p><strong>Methods:</strong> Eligible therapists were recruited from across the United States and Canada. They were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 forms of training in enhanced cognitive behavior therapy (CBT-E), a multicomponent evidence-based psychological treatment for any form of eating disorder. Independent training was undertaken autonomously, while supported training was accompanied by support from a nonspecialist worker. Therapist competence was assessed using a validated competence measure before training, after 20 weeks of training, and 6 months after the completion of training.</p> <p><strong>Results:</strong> A total of 160 therapists expressed interest in the study, and 156 (97.5%) were randomized to the 2 forms of training (81 to supported training and 75 to independent training). Mixed effects analysis showed an increase in competence scores in both groups. There was no difference between the 2 forms of training, with mean difference for the supported versus independent group being –0.06 (95% Cl –1.29 to 1.16, <em>P</em>=.92). A total of 58 participants (58/114, 50.9%) scored above the competence threshold; three-quarters (43/58, 74%) had not met this threshold before training. There was no difference between the 2 groups in the odds of scoring over the competence threshold (odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.99; <em>P</em>=.96). At follow-up, there was no significant difference between the 2 training groups (mean difference 0.19, 95% Cl –1.27 to 1.66, <em>P</em>=.80). Overall, change in competence score from end of training to follow-up was not significant (mean difference –0.70, 95% CI –1.52 to 0.11, <em>P</em>=.09). There was also no difference at follow-up between the training groups in the odds of scoring over the competence threshold (OR 0.95, 95% Cl 0.34 to 2.62; <em>P</em>=.92).</p> <p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Web-centered training was equally effective whether undertaken independently or accompanied by support, and its effects were sustained. The independent form of Web-centered training is particularly attractive as it provides a means of training large numbers of geographically dispersed therapists at low cost, thereby overcoming several obstacles to the widespread dissemination of psychological treatments.</p>

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.286 · 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