Paediatric Application of Individualised Client-Centred Outcome Measures: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A literature review was conducted to identify and compare the clinical utility of client-centred, individualised outcome measures for paediatric rehabilitation. Five measures were identified: the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) (28 studies); Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) (34 studies); Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (PEGS) (2 studies); Target Complaints (TC) (1 study); and the Paediatric Activity Card Sort (PACS) (instruction manual only). The COPM and GAS have been used with children across a wide age range and variety of clinical settings. The PEGS and PACS provided young children direct involvement in the goal-setting process. Little evidence supports the use of TC in paediatrics. Clinicians need to use individualised measures in a way that facilitates the maximal participation of children and families in goal setting and outcome evaluation. Clinicians should document their own role in goal setting. The use of individualised and client-centred measures can motivate children and families and focus their attention on therapy goals.
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 | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".