Parental perceptions of participation of preschool children with and without mobility limitations: validity and reliability of the PART
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study provides information on the psychometric properties of a newly developed Dutch-language instrument for measuring parental perceptions of participation of preschool children (aged 2+ to 5+ years): the PART. METHOD: The PART was administered to parents of preschool children with (n = 51) and without (n = 285) physical developmental disabilities. In the group with disabilities, children with no or relatively minor mobility limitations (capability scores in mobility domain higher than one standard deviation below population mean) were excluded from all analyses. A subgroup of parents of children without disabilities (n = 56) filled out the PART a second time, after a five-week interval. Hypotheses regarding group differences in PART scores and correlations of PART scores with different, but related ICF-constructs were tested. Test-retest reliability of the PART scales was examined. RESULTS: Expectations about group differences were confirmed. PART scores were associated in predicted ways with related constructs. PART scales showed good test-retest reliability (ICCs from 0.76 to 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that the Dutch-language PART is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring parental perceptions of participation of preschool children with and without mobility limitations. The PART can prove useful for both clinical and research purposes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".