Parents evaluation of the processes of care in child rehabilitation: a reliability study of the Norwegian translation of MPOC‐20
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective was to assess the reliability of the Norwegian translation of the Canadian Measure of Processes of Care-20 (MPOC-20) questionnaire for use in child rehabilitation in Norway. MPOC-20 is a standardized questionnaire with 20 items and 5 scales that assesses to what extent parents experience that the services offered to them and their children are in line with the ideologies and principles of the family-centred service (FCS). METHODS: The translation of MPOC-20 was performed according to international standards for translation of questionnaires. A pilot study was carried out with representatives from four patient advocacy organizations. A test-retest reliability study was performed. MPOC-20 (N) was sent to the participants twice with 2- to 6-week intervals. Participants were 36 parents of 25 children aged 0-18 years. Response rate was 41.8%. RESULTS: The intraclass correlations (ICCs) for test-retest scores ranged 0.78-0.86. The internal consistency expressed as Cronbach's alpha ranged 0.62-0.93; the score was high for four of the scales and acceptable for the fifth 'Providing specific information'. These findings strongly suggest that the five scales of MPOC-20 (N) have good test-retest reliability. Average scores of each scale did not differ significantly between the first and second rating, indicating that the average scores of the ratings are stable. CONCLUSIONS: The Measure of Processes of Care-20 (N) appears to be reliable and useful in the Norwegian context, and can be recommended for evaluation of the processes of child rehabilitation(1) in Norway.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".