Evaluating clients' perceptions of the quality of head injury rehabilitation services: development and validation of a questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to develop a tool to assess clients' perception of the quality of head injury rehabilitation services. METHODS AND RESULTS: A questionnaire PQRS-Montreal 1.0 was developed in Montreal, Quebec using a standardized methodology that incorporated a new technique to reach consensus regarding the tool's contents. Five dimensions of care (i.e. ecological approach, client-centred approach, accessibility, quality of the service providers and continuity) and their corresponding standards were identified as pertinent to include in the tool and were subsequently validated by experts. A phase of item generation followed that led to the development of an 87-item prototype of the questionnaire. The questionnaire is to be administered during an interview and employs a 5-point rating scale. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The implications for the use of PQRS-Montreal 1.0 in the accreditation process of head injury rehabilitation services are discussed, as well as plans for future quantitative research in the development of the tool.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".