The IADL Profile: Development, Content Validity, Intra- and Interrater Agreement
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists are frequently asked to document the interplay between individuals' neuropsychological deficits and the requirements of their daily lives. PURPOSE: The present study was designed to develop and validate a measure of independence in everyday functioning that considers recent advances in research regarding the ecological assessment of executive functions. METHOD: Experts (n=8) judged the IADL Profile's content validity and the tool was pilot tested with the target population (n=8). To document the tool's reliability, 30 patients aged 16 to 65 with moderate or severe TBI were recruited. A trained examiner administered the IADL Profile, and three trained judges rated video recordings on two occasions. RESULTS: An eight-task (29-item) test was developed. Comparing ratings of four raters, 95 percent of kappa coefficients indicated moderate to almost perfect agreement, and 94% showed almost perfect intrarater agreement. IMPLICATIONS: The IADL Profile provides occupational therapists with a set of measures of IADL independence with strong preliminary evidence of reliability.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it