Evaluation of the Australian adaptation of the Keeping It Together (KIT‐Australia) information package with carers of children with special needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Australian carers of children with special needs have expressed concerns about the limited availability and accessibility of suitable information resources. The 'Keeping It Together' (KIT) information package was developed and trialled in Canada and found to be effective in meeting the information needs of this population. AIM: The study aimed to evaluate the KIT-Australian Adaptation (KIT-Australia) to determine if it met its purpose of providing carers of children with special needs with strategies to access resources, organise information and communicate with others about their child. The study also aimed to determine whether additional changes were required to increase the KIT-Australia's utility. METHODS: Eighteen carers of children with special needs participated in the study. All participants had accessed services from the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria. Demographic information was collected and carers were orientated to the KIT-Australia prior to using it. After eight weeks, a telephone survey interview was completed with each participant. A content analysis of qualitative and quantitative data provided the results. RESULTS: Most participants stated that they would continue to use the KIT-Australia, and would recommend it to other carers. Six key themes were identified: getting started, accessing resources, organising and storing information, communicating information about my child to others, recommendations and non-use of the KIT-Australia. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary data from this study suggests that the KIT-Australia met its purpose of assisting carers of children with special needs, to access resources, organise information and communicate with others about their child. Participant recommendations to improve the usability of the KIT-Australia should be implemented for future editions of the resource. Further research may be required to adapt and facilitate use of the KIT-Australia in other Australian states and territories.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".