We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
As the use of guided digitally-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy (GdCBT) grows, pragmatic analytic tools are needed to evaluate coaches’ implementation fidelity.
Aims
We evaluated how natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) methods might automate the monitoring of coaches’ implementation fidelity to GdCBT delivered as part of a randomized controlled trial.
Method
Coaches served as guides to 6-month GdCBT with 3,381 assigned users with or at risk for anxiety, depression, or eating disorders. CBT-trained and supervised human coders used a rubric to rate the implementation fidelity of 13,529 coach-to-user messages. NLP methods abstracted data from text-based coach-to-user messages, and 11 ML models predicting coach implementation fidelity were evaluated.
Results
Inter-rater agreement by human coders was excellent (intra-class correlation coefficient = .980–.992). Coaches achieved behavioral targets at the start of the GdCBT and maintained strong fidelity throughout most subsequent messages. Coaches also avoided prohibited actions (e.g. reinforcing users’ avoidance). Sentiment analyses generally indicated a higher frequency of coach-delivered positive than negative sentiment words and predicted coach implementation fidelity with acceptable performance metrics (e.g. area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 74.48%). The final best-performing ML algorithms that included a more comprehensive set of NLP features performed well (e.g. AUC = 76.06%).
Conclusions
NLP and ML tools could help clinical supervisors automate monitoring of coaches’ implementation fidelity to GdCBT. These tools could maximize allocation of scarce resources by reducing the personnel time needed to measure fidelity, potentially freeing up more time for high-quality clinical care.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.