Exploring suitable participation tools for children who need or use power mobility: A modified Delphi survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify suitable tools for measuring important elements of participation for children, aged 18 months to 12 years, who need or use power mobility, and to indicate which tools should be considered for inclusion in a measurement toolkit. METHODS: Parents, therapists and researchers with expertise in paediatric power mobility and participation (n = 70) completed an online modified Delphi survey, with consensus set a priori >80% agreement. Existing tools were matched against participation elements ranked most important for those in early childhood (18 months-5 years) and of school-age (6-12 years) by the panel. RESULTS: Six out of 13 tools demonstrated potential, meeting at least three elements each, although none addressed all elements deemed important to measure by the panel. Only the Participation and Environment Measure for Children and Youth (PEM-CY) reached consensus for inclusion in a participation measure toolkit. CONCLUSION: Further evaluation of these tools with this population is warranted.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".