The measure of processes of care (MPOC): validation of the Dutch translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The objective was to validate the Dutch translation of the Canadian measure of processes of care (MPOC) questionnaire for use in children's rehabilitation centres in the Netherlands. MPOC consists of 56 items (assessing five domains) and was designed to find out what parents of children with chronic health problems think of the services they and their child receive and to measure the extent to which these services are family-centred. METHODS: The Canadian validation procedures were followed, consisting of construct and concurrent validation and reliability analyses. Participants were parents of 427 children aged 1-18 years recruited through nine children's rehabilitation centres in the Netherlands. RESULTS: The construct validity of the Dutch version of MPOC (MPOC-NL) was examined with confirmative analyses of the scale structure. These analyses all supported the construct validity of MPOC-NL. MPOC-NL showed adequate internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.80 to 0.95. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged from 0.79 to 0.94, which demonstrated good stability of MPOC-NL. The Spearman correlations between MPOC-NL scores and satisfaction questions ranged from 0.39 to 0.73, and thus supported the construct validity of MPOC-NL. Correlations between MPOC-NL scores and a question about parents' stress in relation to services received were moderately negative (r(s) = -0.28 to -0.39). CONCLUSION: The construct and concurrent validity of MPOC-NL was shown by confirmative analyses of the original Canadian scale structure, and by modest Spearman correlations between MPOC-NL scores and satisfaction and stress variables. MPOC-NL is internally consistent and reliable.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".