Cross-cultural Adaptation of the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Device Scale (PIADS) for Puerto Rican Assistive Technology Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assistive technology (AT) is important for individuals with disabilities' independence and participation in daily life, and there is a lack of valid AT outcome tools for the Puerto Rican population. This pilot study examined the content validity of a new adaptation of the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Device Scale (PIADS): the Puerto Rican-Spanish PIADS (PR-PIADS). Following standard procedures, the cultural adaptation methodology included a bilingual multidisciplinary committee review of the original (English language) and Spanish versions of the PIADS and pilot testing of the preliminary version of the PR-PIADS with 20 AT users. The committee recommended a total of 58 semantic and conceptual modifications of the Spanish PIADS. Pilot data analysis resulted in 4 additional semantic and conceptual modifications of items that did not reach the minimum content validity ratio of 0.42 for a panel composed by 20 members: competence (0), efficiency (-0.6), performance (-0.95), and eagerness to take chances (-0.6). This pilot study demonstrated evidence of initial content validity of the PR-PIADS. Future research is required before using this tool with greater confidence to address the construct validity and reliability that are also critical to a successful cultural adaptation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".