Development of a Standardized Instrument To Assess Computer Task Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the psychometric properties of the Assessment of Computer Task Performance, specifically, the test-retest reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, and ability to discriminate between known groups. METHOD: This assessment comprises 14 standardized and timed tasks. It was administered to 24 persons with upper-extremity impairments and 30 with no impairments by a trained occupational therapist. To assess the test-retest reliability, participants in the impaired group were retested within 2 to 7 days. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to determine test-retest reliability. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha, and factor analysis was conducted to examine construct validity. The Mann Whitney U Test was used to assess the test's ability to discriminate between the groups. RESULTS: Results indicated that the tool has excellent reliability and internal consistency, can discriminate between groups, and has appropriate construct validity. CONCLUSION: The Assessment of Computer Task Performance provides occupational therapists with an accurate test to measure computer performance and can assist them in providing computer access services.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".