Concurrent and Divergent Validity of The Clientu2019S intervention Priorities (Cip)U00A9 Tool in a Sample of individuals With Traumatic Brain injury : Preliminary Findings On An innovative Canadian instrument
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The Clientu2019s Intervention Priorities (CIP)u00a9 is a tool for the assessment of self-perceived functioning in daily life situations and for determining intervention priorities. It is based on an anthropological model of human development and disability (Disability Creation Process-DCP). Conceived on principles of active participation, empowerment, and autonomy during neurorehabilitation, the CIP is a person-centred collaborative tool for setting rehabilitation goals with individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Objective: To investigate the concurrent and divergent validity of the CIP tool.Design: Cross-sectional descriptive study. Methods: Sixty-four individuals with TBI with a mean age of 39.6 (SD=14.1) years and 4.3 (SD=3.7) months post-injury were recruited at admission to the outpatient TBI rehabilitation program of an interdisciplinary neurorehabilitation centre in Montreal, Canada. The majority were men (57.8%), either single (43.8%) or married (42.2%), having sustained a moderate TBI (45.3%). Using the CIP tool, individuals were asked to judge their degree of functioning in 41 everyday/life situations corresponding to 12 categories (Daily Activities, 21 items: nutrition, fitness, personal care, communication, housing, mobility; Social Roles, 20 items: responsibilities, interpersonal relationships, community life, education, employment, recreation) reflecting the DCP model. A five-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1- u201cI do not do it because of my present condition u2013 somebody else does it for meu201d to 5- u201cI do it alone, without difficultyu201d was used. The CIP tool scores (Daily Activities and Social Roles subscales, and the total CIP total score) were calculated. The Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory-4 (MPAI-4) (indices of Ability, Adjustment, Participation, and the MPAI-4 total score, higher scores correspond to lower levels of functioning) was used as the criterion for convergent validity and a composite score of the MPAI-4 addressing associated conditions (i.e., alcohol and drug use, psychotic symptoms, and law violations) was used to estimate divergent validity. Results: There was a statistically significant strong negative (as expected) correlation between the total score of the CIP tool and the total score of the MPAI-4 (r = -.56, p < .01). Conversely, the CIP did not show statistically significant associations with a composite score of the MPAI-4 addressing associated conditions (r = -.14, p > .05). The CIP Daily Activities subscale and the Social Roles subscale showed medium to large negative associations with the three subscales of the MPAI-4 (ru2019s ranging from -.41 to -.55, p < .01).Conclusions: The CIP tool has strong concurrent and divergent validity in individuals with mild to severe TBI, as shown by its relationships to a widely accepted social participation outcome measure in brain injury. The CIP tool is a theoretically grounded tool with excellent psychometric properties to assist individuals with TBI and their rehabilitation professionals in the self-assessment of life habits and setting of common rehabilitation goals.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».