MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135956618 · doi:10.3109/07434618.2012.704525

Family Impact of Assistive Technology Scale: Development of a Measurement Scale for Parents of Children with Complex Communication Needs

2012· article· en· W2135956618 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAugmentative and Alternative Communication · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth~HollandHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital Foundation
KeywordsScale (ratio)Assistive technologyAugmentative and alternative communicationPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionGeographyCartographyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Young people use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems to meet their everyday communication needs. However, the successful integration of an AAC system into a child's life requires strong commitment and continuous support from parents and other family members. This article describes the development and evaluation of the Family Impact of Assistive Technology Scale for AAC Systems - a parent-report questionnaire intended to detect the impact of AAC systems on the lives of children with complex communication needs and their families. The study involved 179 parents and clinical experts to test the content and face validities of the questionnaire, demonstrate its internal reliability and stability over time, and estimate its convergent construct validity when compared to a standardized measure of family impact.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.289 · 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