Reliability and construct validity of the client-centred rehabilitation questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A key component in assessing the performance of rehabilitation services is the client's perspective. The purpose of this paper is to report on the development of a publicly available measure of client-centred rehabilitation (CCRQ) that can be used for discriminative and evaluative purposes. METHOD: Mixed qualitatative and quantitative methods were used. Phase 1: Identification of seven domains of client-centred rehabilitation based on a literature review, focus groups with clients, and review by content experts. Phase 2: Item generation for the seven conceptually derived subscales and cognitive interviews with inpatient rehabilitation patients. Phase 3: Psychometric testing for internal reliability, test-retest reliability and discriminative construct validity using data from a mailed, self-administered survey to 1,568 patients discharged from two large inpatient rehabilitation facilities. RESULTS: The seven conceptually derived subscales all have strong internal (0.72 - 0.87) and test-retest reliability (0.74 - 0.85). Discriminative construct validity is demonstrated by the ability of subscales to identify significant differences between programs within two rehabilitation facilities. CONCLUSIONS: The results for the reliability and validity of this measure support its value for use in clinical and quality improvement work as well as research.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.005 |
| 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".