MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126321790 · doi:10.5014/ajot.60.4.409

Psychometric Testing of the McGill Ingestive Skills Assessment

2006· article· en· W2126321790 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather C. Lambert, Erika G. Gisel, Michael E. Groher, Michał Abrahamowicz, Sharon Wood-Dauphinée

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInter-rater reliabilityIntraclass correlationReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyIntra-rater reliabilityPsychometricsTest (biology)Clinical psychologyFunctional Independence MeasurePhysical therapyRating scaleActivities of daily livingMedicinePsychiatryDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study was to determine the psychometric properties of the McGill Ingestive Skills Assessment. Interrater and intrarater reliability and score stability were tested using repeated administration of this test. The Functional Independence Measure and Modified Mini-Mental State Examination, as well as patient characteristics, were used to determine the validity of the assessment. One hundred and two persons with ingestive skill loss of neurologic origin were evaluated. Intraclass correlations for interrater, intrarater reliability and stability reached or surpassed 0.80 for most subscales. In validity testing, significant relationships were found between McGill Ingestive scores and Functional Independence Measure and Mini-Mental scores, as well as with patient characteristics. It is concluded that the McGill Ingestive Skills Assessment approaches or meets levels of reliability necessary for assessing patients and is valid for adults with neurogenic feeding difficulties residing in tertiary care facilities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.375 · 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

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207