Participant-Proxy Agreement on Objective and Subjective Aspects of Societal Participation Following Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine congruence between participant (P) and significant other (SO) reports on societal participation in 3 objective domains (economic, community, and social activities) and subjective satisfaction with participation at 1 year after traumatic brain injury (TBI). PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-seven persons with moderate to severe TBI and their SOs (27 spouses/partners, 47 parents, 23 other relatives/friends). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Community Participation Indicators questionnaire, divided into Objective (Economic, Community, Social) and Subjective (Satisfaction) subscales. DESIGN: Prospective correlational study. RESULTS: P-SO congruence differed by domain of participation, with Economic and Community indicators showing higher agreement than Social and Satisfaction items. Congruence was not affected by P-SO relationship or whether the pair lived together. However, pairs who spent at least daily time together had significantly higher agreement on Satisfaction items than pairs who were together less often. Congruence was not predicted by SOs' self-reported degree of awareness of Ps' concerns. Severity of TBI, within the range represented in this sample, had no effect on P-SO congruence in any domain. CONCLUSION: In research on participation after TBI, proxy report may be an acceptable substitute for missing participant report on productivity and community activity outcomes. However, proxy responses should be used with caution for questions about social activities and degree of satisfaction with participation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".