Performance of the measures of processes of care for adults and service providers in rehabilitation settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In recent years, client-centered care has been embraced as a new philosophy of care by many organizations around the world. Clinicians and researchers have identified the need for valid and reliable outcome measures that are easy to use to evaluate success of implementation of new concepts. OBJECTIVE: The current study was developed to complete adaptation and field testing of the companion patient-reported measures of processes of care for adults (MPOC-A) and the service provider self-reflection measure of processes of care for service providers working with adult clients (MPOC-SP(A)). DESIGN: A validation study. SETTINGS: In-patient rehabilitation facilities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: MPOC-A and measure of processes of care for service providers working with adult clients (MPOC-SP(A)). RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-four health care providers, 61 patients, and 16 family members completed the questionnaires. Good to excellent internal consistency (0.71-0.88 for health care professionals, 0.82-0.90 for patients, and 0.87-0.94 for family members), as well as moderate to good correlations between domains (0.40-0.78 for health care professionals and 0.52-0.84 for clients) supported internal reliability of the tools. Exploratory factor analysis of the MPOC-SP(A) responses supported the multidimensionality of the questionnaire. CONCLUSION: MPOC-A and MPOC-SP(A) are valid and reliable tools to assess patient and service-provider accounts, respectively, of the extent to which they experience, or are able to provide, client-centered service. Research should now be undertaken to explore in more detail the relationships between client experience and provider reports of their own behavior.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".