个人安置和支持计划中独立审查员评分和自我评分的忠实度比较分析:重复横断面调查。

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Sosei Yamaguchi, Junko Koike, Momoka Igarashi, Takayuki Kawaguchi, Takuma Shiozawa, Kaori Usui, Mai Iwanaga, Asami Matsunaga, Koji Yoshida, Sayaka Sato, Chiyo Fujii
{"title":"个人安置和支持计划中独立审查员评分和自我评分的忠实度比较分析:重复横断面调查。","authors":"Sosei Yamaguchi, Junko Koike, Momoka Igarashi, Takayuki Kawaguchi, Takuma Shiozawa, Kaori Usui, Mai Iwanaga, Asami Matsunaga, Koji Yoshida, Sayaka Sato, Chiyo Fujii","doi":"10.1007/s10488-024-01413-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Fidelity assessments can contribute to maintaining the adherence to the individual placement and support (IPS) model, which enhances vocational outcomes for individuals with mental illness worldwide. While independent reviews are standard, self-assessments could broaden the implementation of IPS. This study aimed to evaluate reviewer-rated and self-rated fidelity assessments using the Japanese version of the Individualized Supported Employment Fidelity Scale (JiSEF), and to compare the two assessment methods in terms of their correlations with employment outcomes in Japan. Over the 3-year research period, fidelity assessments were conducted by independent reviewers and trained program staff members across 26 programs, totaling 58 assessments. Analyses involved kappa statistics for item-level comparison, the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and paired t-test for the overall fidelity scores, and Pearson's correlations to examine the relationship between the fidelity scores and program-level employment outcomes. Most individual JiSEF items demonstrated fair to good reliability between reviewer-rated and self-rated assessments. The ICC for the overall JiSEF scores between the two assessment methods was 0.756, yet the distribution of self-rated scores was more scattered compared with that of reviewer-rated scores. The mean total scores from self-assessments were significantly lower than those from reviewer assessments (t = 2.072, P = 0.043). While both sets of scores correlated significantly with employment rates (r = 0.640, P < 0.001 for reviewer assessments; r = 0.325, P = 0.013 for self-assessments), the correlation was stronger for reviewer ratings (z = 2.207, P = 0.027). Self-rated fidelity assessments offer several benefits. However, since independent reviews had a more normal distribution and higher correlation with employment outcome, they should remain the priority in fidelity assessments within the Japanese IPS framework.</p>","PeriodicalId":7195,"journal":{"name":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Independent Reviewer-Rated and Self-Rated Fidelity Scores in Individual Placement and Support Programs: Repeated Cross-Sectional Surveys.\",\"authors\":\"Sosei Yamaguchi, Junko Koike, Momoka Igarashi, Takayuki Kawaguchi, Takuma Shiozawa, Kaori Usui, Mai Iwanaga, Asami Matsunaga, Koji Yoshida, Sayaka Sato, Chiyo Fujii\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10488-024-01413-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Fidelity assessments can contribute to maintaining the adherence to the individual placement and support (IPS) model, which enhances vocational outcomes for individuals with mental illness worldwide. While independent reviews are standard, self-assessments could broaden the implementation of IPS. This study aimed to evaluate reviewer-rated and self-rated fidelity assessments using the Japanese version of the Individualized Supported Employment Fidelity Scale (JiSEF), and to compare the two assessment methods in terms of their correlations with employment outcomes in Japan. Over the 3-year research period, fidelity assessments were conducted by independent reviewers and trained program staff members across 26 programs, totaling 58 assessments. Analyses involved kappa statistics for item-level comparison, the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and paired t-test for the overall fidelity scores, and Pearson's correlations to examine the relationship between the fidelity scores and program-level employment outcomes. Most individual JiSEF items demonstrated fair to good reliability between reviewer-rated and self-rated assessments. The ICC for the overall JiSEF scores between the two assessment methods was 0.756, yet the distribution of self-rated scores was more scattered compared with that of reviewer-rated scores. The mean total scores from self-assessments were significantly lower than those from reviewer assessments (t = 2.072, P = 0.043). While both sets of scores correlated significantly with employment rates (r = 0.640, P < 0.001 for reviewer assessments; r = 0.325, P = 0.013 for self-assessments), the correlation was stronger for reviewer ratings (z = 2.207, P = 0.027). Self-rated fidelity assessments offer several benefits. However, since independent reviews had a more normal distribution and higher correlation with employment outcome, they should remain the priority in fidelity assessments within the Japanese IPS framework.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-024-01413-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-024-01413-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

忠实度评估有助于保持对个人安置和支持(IPS)模式的坚持,从而提高全球精神疾病患者的职业成果。虽然独立审查是标准做法,但自我评估可以扩大 IPS 的实施范围。本研究旨在使用日语版的个体化辅助就业忠实度量表(JiSEF),对评审员评分和自我评分的忠实度评估进行评估,并比较两种评估方法与日本就业结果的相关性。在为期 3 年的研究期间,由独立评审员和经过培训的项目工作人员对 26 个项目进行了保真度评估,共进行了 58 次评估。分析包括用于项目层面比较的卡帕统计、用于总体忠实度评分的类内相关系数(ICC)和配对 t 检验,以及用于检验忠实度评分与项目层面就业结果之间关系的皮尔逊相关性。大多数单个 JiSEF 项目在审核者评分和自我评分之间都表现出了一般到良好的可靠性。两种评估方法之间 JiSEF 总分的 ICC 值为 0.756,但自评分数的分布与评审人评分相比更为分散。自评的平均总分明显低于审稿人评定的平均总分(t = 2.072,P = 0.043)。虽然两组分数都与就业率有显著相关性(r = 0.640,P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Analysis of Independent Reviewer-Rated and Self-Rated Fidelity Scores in Individual Placement and Support Programs: Repeated Cross-Sectional Surveys.

Fidelity assessments can contribute to maintaining the adherence to the individual placement and support (IPS) model, which enhances vocational outcomes for individuals with mental illness worldwide. While independent reviews are standard, self-assessments could broaden the implementation of IPS. This study aimed to evaluate reviewer-rated and self-rated fidelity assessments using the Japanese version of the Individualized Supported Employment Fidelity Scale (JiSEF), and to compare the two assessment methods in terms of their correlations with employment outcomes in Japan. Over the 3-year research period, fidelity assessments were conducted by independent reviewers and trained program staff members across 26 programs, totaling 58 assessments. Analyses involved kappa statistics for item-level comparison, the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and paired t-test for the overall fidelity scores, and Pearson's correlations to examine the relationship between the fidelity scores and program-level employment outcomes. Most individual JiSEF items demonstrated fair to good reliability between reviewer-rated and self-rated assessments. The ICC for the overall JiSEF scores between the two assessment methods was 0.756, yet the distribution of self-rated scores was more scattered compared with that of reviewer-rated scores. The mean total scores from self-assessments were significantly lower than those from reviewer assessments (t = 2.072, P = 0.043). While both sets of scores correlated significantly with employment rates (r = 0.640, P < 0.001 for reviewer assessments; r = 0.325, P = 0.013 for self-assessments), the correlation was stronger for reviewer ratings (z = 2.207, P = 0.027). Self-rated fidelity assessments offer several benefits. However, since independent reviews had a more normal distribution and higher correlation with employment outcome, they should remain the priority in fidelity assessments within the Japanese IPS framework.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: The aim of Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services is to improve mental health services through research. This journal primarily publishes peer-reviewed, original empirical research articles.  The journal also welcomes systematic reviews. Please contact the editor if you have suggestions for special issues or sections focusing on important contemporary issues.  The journal usually does not publish articles on drug or alcohol addiction unless it focuses on persons who are dually diagnosed. Manuscripts on children and adults are equally welcome. Topics for articles may include, but need not be limited to, effectiveness of services, measure development, economics of mental health services, managed mental health care, implementation of services, staffing, leadership, organizational relations and policy, and the like.  Please review previously published articles for fit with our journal before submitting your manuscript.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信