Home Assessment of Person-Environment Interaction (HoPE): Content Validation Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present the content validation, including a pilot test, of the Home Assessment of the Person-Environment Interaction (HoPE). The HoPE fills a gap for evaluating issues related to home adaptation. Using qualitative methods, a two-phase study was conducted: an expert consultation and a pilot test. The expert consultation was conducted via focus groups with occupational therapists (n = 20), and individual interviews with adults who had undergone home adaptation (n = 5). The pilot test was undertaken using a multiple case study design of four adults awaiting home adaptation. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NUD.IST software. In phase 1, experts agreed with the content of HoPE and suggested minor changes. In phase 2, HoPE enabled occupational therapists to identify handicap-creating situations. After both phases, the final version of HoPE is more comprehensive than other current tools and addresses the complex experiences of clients with whom occupational therapists work which suggests a new approach for practice regarding home 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".