MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083392391 · doi:10.3109/17518423.2014.1000504

Assessing psychosocial functioning following childhood acquired brain injury: The Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale for Children

2015· article· en· W2083392391 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl Soo, Robyn Tate, Vicki Anderson, Miriam H. Beauchamp, Naomi Brookes, Cathy Catroppa, Jane Galvin, Frank Muscara

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neurorehabilitation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialNormativePsychologyClinical psychologyMedicinePhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale for Children (SPRS-C) assesses psychosocial functioning in children with acquired brain injury (ABI). This article aims to: (1) describe normative data for the parent-rated SPRS-C and, (2) evaluate the discriminant validity of the SPRS-C. METHODS: For Aim 1, participants were parents of typically developing children (TDC) aged 5-14 years (N = 200). For Aim 2, participants with ABI were aged 5-14 years (n = 26). A matched group of TDC was sampled from the larger normative sample to serve as a control group (n = 26). RESULTS: For Aim 1, SPRS-C scores across the 10 age-bands were in the higher ranges. Correlation coefficients of SPRS-C total score with child's age and parent occupational skill level were not statistically significant. For Aim 2, SPRS-C scores for the ABI group were significantly lower than the control group. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a guide for clinical interpretation of the SPRS-C for measuring psychosocial functioning in children with ABI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeurorehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207