How Interdisciplinary Pediatric Practitioners Choose Assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The assessment process affects the direction and quality of the services children and youth with disabilities receive. However, little is known about how practitioners choose tools and strategies to assess clients. PURPOSE: To identify processes practitioners use to gather information and choose methods of assessment in pediatric practice. METHODS: Three focus groups were held with teams of interdisciplinary pediatric practitioners. Key themes were identified. FINDINGS: Two primary themes emerged: "Things practitioners want to know" and "Choosing what and how to assess." Practitioners began the assessment process wanting to gather information about children and their environment. Practitioners then used the initial information to decide what and how to further assess as described by three subthemes: "fitting" the child, balancing formal and informal information, and professional context. IMPLICATIONS: Practitioners generally made individualized assessment choices for each child based on the initial information they gathered and then used a balance of formal and informal assessments. However, they were more likely to formally assess children at the level of body structures and function rather than participation, and continued to rely upon such standardized assessments to meet reimbursement and policy requirements.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".