ArticleAdministration and policy in mental health2025
Comparative Analysis of Independent Reviewer-Rated and Self-Rated Fidelity Scores in Individual Placement and Support Programs: Repeated Cross-Sectional Surveys.
Article in Administration and policy in mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Structural barriers to implementing individual placement and support in Japanese disability policies and Labor systems.Public health reviews · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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.
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.