Giving Youth a Voice (GYV): A Measure of Youths' Perceptions of the Client-Centredness of Rehabilitation Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although client-centred care is regarded as the optimum way of delivering health care, there is currently no method to measure the client-centredness of services for youth with disabilities. PURPOSE: To develop a measure of youths' perceptions of the client-centredness of health care services in rehabilitation. METHODS: The Giving Youth a Voice (GYV) questionnaire was adapted from the Measure of Processes of Care, a measure of caregiving from the perspective of parents. Items for a youth version of the questionnaire were generated from focus groups with youths who had received rehabilitation services. Content analysis of the groups yielded four themes, which became the subscales for the new measure. FINDINGS: GYV, a 56-item measure, has good internal reliability and test-retest reliability. Convergent validity was estimated through correlations with the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire. IMPLICATIONS: GYV provides an opportunity for youth with disabilities to have a voice about the rehabilitation services they receive.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".