Adaptation of protocol M1-Alpha for bedside assessment of language
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The objective of this study was to adapt the M1-Alpha and to search for content validity evidence. The process of adaptation of the instrument was divided into four steps. Step 1: Three language and speech therapists, two of whom were experts on aphasiology and one, a master's student in human communication disorders, analyzed the instruments M1-Alpha (only available for research and for some clinicians), the Montreal-Toulouse Language Assessment Battery for Aphasia-BR (MTL-BR) and MTL-BR version B (not marketed), to check for possible needs for modifications and select the stimuli to compose the instrument being adapted. Step 2: Twenty-eight non-expert judges analyzed the representativeness of 65 drawings. When necessary, the judges could make suggestions for improvements. Step 3: Five judges, who are experts on assessment of aphasia, determined whether the pictorial stimuli were adequate while four other judges, experts on linguistics and phonological acquisition, determined if the words, pseudowords and sentences were appropriate. As in Step 2, the expert judges were instructed to suggest modifications when necessary Step 4: This step was divided into pilot study 1 and pilot study 2, both with healthy individuals. After modifications suggested by the judges, the first draft of the instrument was designed and then applied to the sample of pilot study 1, composed of seven individuals. Based on pilot study 1, punctuation errors and inadequacies of some stimuli could be identified. After the adjustments required, the latest version of the protocol M1-Alpha was designed and then called MTL-BR Brief. The instrument was applied to 63 individuals from pilot study 2. Analysis of data from steps 1 and 4 was descriptive. For step 2, index of agreement among judges was determined using simple percentage agreement. The results of the expert judges were analyzed by calculating the content validity ratio while the first-order agreement coefficient (AC1 statistic) of Gwet was used to check for the correlation between expert judges. After analysis of the instruments (Step 1), 65 figures were designed and redesigned and then analyzed by non-expert raters (Step 2), and 60 of them showed more than 80% agreement. After adjustments, they were analyzed by the expert judges (Step 3); all 23 words, pseudo words and phrases were considered to be appropriate, while 22 out of the 66 pictorial stimuli required changes. Subsequently, they were analyzed by the same expert judges, and there was high agreement AC1= 0,98 [IC=0,96-1]. On the basis of the pilot studies (Step 4), some errors were found and then corrected to produce the latest version of the instrument. In conclusion, satisfactory content validity could be achieved in the adaptation of the M1-Alpha test, originating the MTL-BR Brief Battery.
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 | 0,062 | 0,097 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,022 | 0,016 |
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 ».