Analysis of the coverage of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in motor development assessment instruments for children in early childhood education centers: A methodological study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), based on the WHO's biopsychosocial model, seeks to understand the individual's functioning in an integrated way, considering more than just biological factors. In child motor development, this approach converges with current theories, highlighting the importance of Early Childhood Education Centers (ECEC) in the acquisition of motor skills during early childhood. Integrated approaches are fundamental to this development. Objective: To analyze the distribution of the coverage of the ICF components in the motor development assessment instruments for children in ECECs. Method: This is a two-part methodological study. The first part consisted of an integrative review conducted in the PUBMED, LILACS and EMBASE databases, using descriptors related to “Child Development” and “Day Care Centers”. No time limitations were applied, and studies published in Portuguese, English or Spanish that presented evaluative measures of children's motor development in ECECs were included. The second part of the study was based on the analysis of five instruments for assessing the motor development of children in ECECs that were found in the previous stage: Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), Bayley Scale of Infant and Toddler Development (BAYLEY-III), Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2), Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development (AHEMD) and Denver Developmental Screening Tests (DENVER-II). The items of these instruments were linked to the components of the ICF, considering the first level classifications and the second level categories, according to the protocol established by Cieza et al. (2016). Results: Between 2004 and 2021, there was a predominance of the biopsychosocial model in the articles that assessed the motor development of children in ECECs, with 81.82% of the studies analyzed using this approach to interpret the results. 107 concepts were linked to the first level of the Body Functions and Structures component and 240 to the Activity and Participation component. 30 concepts from the first level were linked to the Environmental Factors component. At the second level, 10 categories were linked to Body Functions and Structures, 22 to Activity and Participation and 10 to Environmental Factors in the instruments analyzed. Conclusion: There is a predominance of the biopsychosocial health model. However, there is still a prevalence of categories linked to the Body Functions and Structures and Activities and Participation components, compared to the Environmental Factors component, showing a gap in the understanding of functioning as a dynamic and contextual phenomenon.
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 | 0,163 | 0,261 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,032 | 0,031 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».