Measuring participation in children with disabilities using the Assessment of Life Habits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were: (1) to examine the psychometric properties of the Assessment of Life Habits (LIFE-H) for children; and (2) to draw a profile of the level of participation among children of 5 to 13 years of age with various impairments. The research team adapted the adult version of the LIFE-H in order to render it more appropriate for the daily life experiences of children. Content validity was verified by an expert panel of 29 people, made up of parents, paediatric clinicians, and researchers. Reliability and construct validity of the LIFE-H for children (interview-administered form) was tested during an experiment that comprised three sessions of interviews with a group of 94 parents of children with disabilities (36 males, 58 females; mean age 8y 10mo [SD 2y 6 mo]; diagnostic groups: cerebral palsy, myelomeningocoele, sensory-motor neuropathy, traumatic brain injury, and developmental delay). Overall, the LIFE-H showed high intrarater reliability with intraclass correlation coefficient values of 0.78 or higher for 10 out of 11 categories. The correlations between the LIFE-H and the tools used in pediatric rehabilitation varied, and categories with similar constructs generally led to higher correlations. The psychometric properties of the LIFE-H are appropriate and its content allows a complete description of participation among children with disabilities.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".