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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».