MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1907580607 · doi:10.1111/cch.12043

Construct validity of the <scp>FOCUS</scp><sup>©</sup> (<scp>F</scp>ocus on the <scp>O</scp>utcomes of <scp>C</scp>ommunication <scp>U</scp>nder <scp>S</scp>ix): a communicative participation outcome measure for preschool children

2013· article· en· W1907580607 on OpenAlex
Karla T. Washington, Nancy Thomas‐Stonell, Bruce Oddson, Sharynne McLeod, Genese Warr-Leeper, Bernadette Robertson, Peter Rosenbaum

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalMcMaster UniversityLaurentian UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaBloorview Research Institute
KeywordsSocializationFocus groupIntervention (counseling)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish the construct validity of the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS©). This measure is reflective of concepts in the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health--Children and Youth framework. It was developed to capture 'real-world' changes (e.g. communicative participation) in preschoolers' communication following speech-language intervention. METHOD: A pre-post design was used. Fifty-two parents of 3- to 6-year-old preschoolers attending speech-language therapy were included as participants. Speech-language therapists provided individual and/or group intervention to preschoolers. Intervention targeted: articulation/phonology, voice/resonance, expressive/receptive language, play, and use of augmentative devices. Construct validity for communicative participation was assessed using pre-intervention and post-intervention parent interviews using the FOCUS© and the communication and socialization domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-II (VABS-II). RESULTS: Significant associations were found between the FOCUS©, measuring communicative participation, and the VABS-II domains for: (i) pre-intervention scores in communication (r = 0.53, P < 0.001; 95% CI 0.30-0.70) and socialization (r = 0.67, P < 0.001; 95% CI 0.48-0.80); (ii) change scores over-time in communication (r = 0.45, P < 0.001; 95% CI 0.201-0.65) and socialization (r = 0.39, P = 0.002; 95% CI 0.13-0.60); and (iii) scores at post-intervention for communication (r = 0.53, P < 0.001; 95% CI 0.30-0.70) and for socialization (r = 0.37, P = 0.003; 95% CI 0.11-0.50). CONCLUSIONS: The study provided evidence on construct validity of the FOCUS© for evaluating real-world changes in communication. We believe that the FOCUS© is a useful measure of communicative participation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it