Evaluation of a parent-report diary of the home use of assistive devices by young children with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate the preliminary measurement properties of a parent-report diary of the home use of seating and mobility devices by young children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: Four AT experts reviewed the home use of technology for children (HUTCH) diary to confirm its coverage of AT devices, and six parents of young children with CP examined its content, wording and organization. A random sample of 12 other parents independently completed a HUTCH diary daily for 1 week to record their child's use of seating, mobility and orthotic devices at home. Two to three weeks later, parents completed a second diary of AT device use over another seven consecutive days. RESULTS: The face validity, content validity and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.69-0.97) of the HUTCH were very good. Parents reported that they completed the diary quickly and easily. CONCLUSIONS: The HUTCH diary shows promise as a reliable and practical way to record the frequency and number of hours that children use different types of seating and mobility-related devices at home. Testing the concurrent validity of the HUTCH diary against an acceptable criterion measure will improve its acceptance as measure of AT device use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".