Environmental Opportunities Questionnaire: development of a measure of the environment supporting early motor development in the first year of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The development and testing of a measure evaluating the quality and variability in the home environment as it relates to the motor development of infants during the first year of life. METHODS: A sample of 112 boys and 95 girls with a mean age of 7.1 months (SD 1.8) and GA of 39.6 weeks (SD 1.5) participated in the study. The measurement development process was divided into three phases: measurement development (item generation or selection of items from existing measurement tools), pilot testing to determine acceptability and feasibility to parents, and exploratory factor analysis to organize items into meaningful concepts. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were also determined. RESULTS: The environmental opportunities questionnaire (EOQ) is a feasible 21-item measure comprised of three factors including opportunities in the play space, sensory variety and parental encouragement. Overall, test-retest reliability was 0.92 (CI 0.84-0.96) and the internal consistency is 0.79. The EOQ emphasizes quality of the environment and access to equipment and toys that have the potential to facilitate early motor development. CONCLUSION: The preliminary analyses reported here suggest more work could be done on the EOQ to strengthen its use for research or clinical purposes; however, it is adequate for use in its current form. Implications for Rehabilitation New and feasible 21-item questionnaire that enables identification of malleable environmental factors that serve as potential points of intervention for children that are not developing typically. Therapeutic tool for use by therapists to inform and guide discussions with caregivers about potential influences of environmental, social and attitudinal factors in their child's early development.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".