Pediatric Assessment Scale for Severe Feeding Problems: Validity and Reliability of a New Scale for Tube‐Fed Children
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study reports data on the validity and reliability of a new parent report measure, the Pediatric Assessment Scale for Severe Feeding Problems, designed to assess progress in the development of oral eating skills for children who need prolonged tube feeding. METHODS: The questionnaire was completed by parents of 3 groups of children. The first group consisted of 17 children who received all of their nutrition by tube feedings, a second group of 30 children who were oral eaters but required supplementation by tube feedings, and a third group of 27 children who were referred for feeding difficulties but were not receiving any tube feeding. A subset of parents from each group completed the measure a second time approximately 2 to 4 weeks after completing the initial questionnaire in order to examine the reliability of the measure. RESULTS: The mean scores (scale of 0 to 66) on the measure were 7.3 for completely tube-fed children, 30.0 for partially tube-fed children, and 46.8 for referred, non-tube-fed children. The correlation between first and second administration of the measure was .98. CONCLUSIONS: The validity and reliability of the Pediatric Assessment Scale for Severe Feeding Problems appears to be adequate. The new measure should allow clinicians to better rate initial severity of feeding difficulties and to track the progress of children as they advance from being totally tube-fed to completely orally fed.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it