Using a Participatory Action Research Design to Develop an Application Together with Young Adults with Spina Bifida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Young adults with spina bifida often have cognitive difficulties. As a result, young adults with disabilities are facing challenges with respect to housing, education, relationships and vocation which increases risk of unemployment. AIM: The aim is to describe a method to develop a smartphone application together with young adults with spina bifida as an assistive technology for cognition. METHOD: In a Participatory Action Research approach, young adults (n = 5) with spina bifida were individually interviewed with Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). The participants' restrictions in everyday life activities, identified by COPM, were discussed in a focus group formed by the young adults and the result was analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Developing the application the principles of Human-Centered-Design and Universal Design was followed. RESULT: An application made for iOS with a focus on usability and worthiness, done by creating a clear and intuitive interface, with a calendar function useful for example to initiate and plan social activities was developed. CONCLUSION: The method seems useful when the outcome from the project, a beta version of an application for iOS Smartphone, was achieved in agreement with the participants. The study highlight the importance of involving individuals with disabilities when developing smartphone applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".