ArticlePsychological assessment
Estimating classification consistency of machine learning models for screening measures.
Article in Psychological assessment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The recoverability, reliability, and generalizability of reward processing parameters and relation to mental health symptoms.Psychological medicine · 2026Article
- Estimating classification consistency of screening measures and quantifying the impact of measurement bias.Psychological assessment · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article illustrates novel quantitative methods to estimate classification consistency in machine learning models used for screening measures. Screening measures are used in psychology and medicine to classify individuals into diagnostic classifications. In addition to achieving high accuracy, it is ideal for the screening process to have high classification consistency, which means that respondents would be classified into the same group every time if the assessment was repeated. Although machine learning models are increasingly being used to predict a screening classification based on individual item responses, methods to describe the classification consistency of machine learning models have not yet been developed. This article addresses this gap by describing methods to estimate classification inconsistency in machine learning models arising from two different sources: sampling error during model fitting and measurement error in the item responses. These methods use data resampling techniques such as the bootstrap and Monte Carlo sampling. These methods are illustrated using three empirical examples predicting a health condition/diagnosis from item responses. R code is provided to facilitate the implementation of the methods. This article highlights the importance of considering classification consistency alongside accuracy when studying screening measures and provides the tools and guidance necessary for applied researchers to obtain classification consistency indices in their machine learning research on diagnostic assessments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.