Back

Support Needs And Adaptive Behavior Surveys: Services Prediction And Relationship

Piccorelli, A.; Moody, E.; Dahl, E.; Heath, D.; Root-Elledge, S.

2023-11-07 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2023.11.05.23298117 medRxiv
Show abstract

The Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (ICAP) and the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS) have been used to determine Medicaid eligibility for individuals with disabilities but are designed to capture different information. This project explored how these surveys relate to services received and each other. ICAP and SIS surveys were conducted on 125 [Blinded] adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities eligible for a Medicaid Waiver. Results suggest that both measures were strongly associated and could be used to predict services. However, this study suggests that the SIS and ICAP summary measures were separate constructs. Therefore, both instruments can be used to determine Medicaid eligibility, but implementers should be aware of differences in the types of constructs being captured.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
63.6%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
2
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
○ 128 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.9%
Similar papers in this journal
3
BMC Psychiatry
○ 25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.0%
Similar papers in this journal
4
BMC Health Services Research
○ 51 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.8%
Similar papers in this journal
5
BMJ Open
● 601 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.2%
7
Frontiers in Psychiatry
○ 87 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
8
Frontiers in Psychology
○ 56 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
9
Psychiatry Research
○ 41 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
10
BMC Public Health
○ 158 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
11
Brain Sciences
○ 55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
12
JMIR Research Protocols
◐ 21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
13
Cureus
○ 68 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
14
Frontiers in Public Health
○ 148 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%
15
Disability and Rehabilitation
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
16
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
○ 12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
17
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.5%
18
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
○ 96 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
19
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
◐ 45 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.