The <scp>GO</scp>4<scp>KIDDS</scp> Brief Adaptive Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of adaptive behaviour is important in both clinical and research contexts. While several good clinical measures exist, as well as brief research measures for adults with intellectual disability, there is need for a brief and efficient measure for research with children and youth. We present preliminary psychometric properties of a new scale we developed for such purposes, the GO4KIDDS Brief Adaptive Behaviour Scale. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A large sample (n = 432) of parents of youth (aged 3-20) with intellectual disability and/or ASD completed an online survey that included the new scale. A subsample of these parents (n = 204) also completed the Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised Short Form (Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised Comprehensive Manual, 1996 and Riverside Publishing). RESULTS: The new scale has good internal consistency and correlates strongly with the Scales of Independent Behavior, thus supporting its reliability and validity. CONCLUSIONS: Although we do not recommend its use for clinical purposes, the GO4KIDDS Brief Adaptive Behaviour Scale may be useful for survey research with parents of children and youth with developmental 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".