Assessment of computer task performance (ACTP) of children and youth with intellectual and developmental disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were to assess the reliability and validity of the Arabic translation of the Assessment of Computer Task Performance (ACTP) when used for children with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD) and to determine the relationship between participants’ performance when using an adapted pointing device and the teacher’s satisfaction of their performance. Thirty boys and girls, Arabic speakers, 6− 21 years old, who had moderate IDD, participated in the study. Two expert occupational therapists used the ACTP to evaluate the performance of five standardized timed computer tasks. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology was used to evaluate the teachers’ satisfaction with the prescribed pointing device. The sample in the current study performed slower than typically developing children and youth, and slower than participants with motor impairments, examined in previous studies. Differences were found in performance time between girls and boys, and between three diagnostic subgroups. The participants’ success scores of computer performance correlated significantly with the teacher’s satisfaction with the prescribed pointing device. Demonstration of the validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the ACTP-Child enables wider use of this tool which is now available in four languages and diverse cultural settings and disability populations, including children and youth with significant IDD.Implications for RehabilitationThe Assessment of Computer Task Performance (ACTP) Child version found to be a user-friendly, reliable and valid assessment used to examine pointing device performance of children and youth with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD).The ACTP Child version conducted in a Windows environment was found to be reliable and valid in the Arabic language, in keeping with other languages examined in the past.The time of performance of ACTP tasks was found to be sensitive to differences according to gender and diagnostic subgroups.The participants’ success scores of computer performance correlated significantly with the teacher’s satisfaction with the prescribed pointing device but not with performance time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".