RESEARCH ARTICLE. BCFPI Validation for a High-risk High-needs Sample of Children and Youth Admitted to Tertiary Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cook et al Objective: This study examined the validity and reliability of the Brief Child and Family Phone Interview (BCFPI) in a sample of high-risk, high-need children and youth admitted to a tertiary residential psychiatric facility. This is the first validation study of the BCFPI with children and youth functioning at the extreme clinical range. Method: Participants consisted of children and youth in a southwestern Ontario tertiary residential mental health facility. Two hundred twenty seven children and youth aged 6.28 to 16.74 (M = 12.06 years, SD = 2.46) were evaluated. Internal consistencies of each scale were tested using Cronbach’s alpha, and subsequently confirmed with unidimensional principal components analyses. Concurrent validity was evaluated through Pearson product-moment correlations between each subscale and the empirically validated subscales in the Conners ’ Rating Scales. Results: With exception of the conduct subscale (alpha =.68), all Cronbach’s alpha estimates were in the acceptable range. Each scale demonstrated acceptable factor loadings on a single-factor principal components extraction derived from the pool of items within each scale. Concurrent validity was evidenced by moderate to strong correlations identified with selected measures of the Conners ’ Parent Rating Scale. Conclusions: Considered together, the results of this study indicate that the BCFPI is a reliable and valid indicator of child
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".