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 OpenAlexafffund
Karla T. Washington, Nancy Thomas‐Stonell, Bruce Oddson, Sharynne McLeod, Genese Warr-Leeper, Bernadette Robertson, Peter Rosenbaum

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Care Health and DevelopmentSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207