MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010028374 · doi:10.3109/17518423.2013.855273

The Child and Adolescent Scale of Environment (CASE): Further validation with youth who have chronic conditions

2013· article· en· W2010028374 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gary Bedell, Janette McDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neurorehabilitation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsThames Valley Children's Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyAdolescent developmentGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To further validate the Child and Adolescent Scale of Environment (CASE). METHODS: Baseline data (n = 430) were analyzed from a longitudinal study on quality of life for youth with chronic conditions ages 11-17 in Ontario, Canada. Internal consistency and structure, and convergent and discriminant validity were examined via Cronbach's alpha (α), exploratory factor analyses, correlation analyses and ANOVA. RESULTS: The CASE had high internal consistency (α = 0.89). A three-factor solution was produced with 55% variance explained: (1) Community/Home Resources, (2) School Resources and (3) Physical Design/Access). CASE total and factor scores were significantly correlated with scores from measures of impairment and participation (i.e. youth with more problematic environments had more severe impairment and more restricted participation). Significant differences in CASE scores existed for primary condition and impairment severity, but not for age or gender. CONCLUSION: Results provide additional CASE validation evidence. Further testing is needed with more diverse and representative samples.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeurorehabilitationSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207