Reliability and Validity of the Supplemental Protection and Advocacy Scale of the Supports Intensity Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three separate studies were undertaken to examine the reliability and validity of the Supplemental Protection and Advocacy Scale (P&A Scale) of the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS). In Study 1, the interrater reliability of the P&A Scale was investigated when interviewers were trained in SIS administration and scoring. Pearson's product moment coefficients were considerably higher than coefficients reported in a previous study conducted with untrained interviewers. In Study 2, the reliability (internal consistency, standard error of measurement, and interrater reliability) and validity (content and construct validity) of the P&A Scale when administered by trained interviewers with a sample of individuals with intellectual disability and related developmental disabilities (ID/DD) receiving services from a state ID/DD agency were examined. Results indicated strong reliability and validity of the P&A Scale, comparable to other domains of the SIS. In Study 3, additional psychometric properties of the P&A Scale were examined in a large sample of trained interviewers from across the United States and Canada using the SIS Online, with findings again showing strong psychometric properties. Collectively, findings from these three investigations suggested that the P&A Scale is a reliable and valid measure of support needs. In future revisions of the SIS, the P&A Scale should be considered for inclusion in the section of the SIS that yields standard scores reflecting an individual's relative intensity of support need.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".