Family-centred services in the Netherlands: validating a self-report measure for paediatric service providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate the Dutch translation of the Canadian Measure of Processes of Care for Service Providers questionnaire (MPOC-SP) for use in paediatric rehabilitation settings in the Netherlands. DESIGN: The construct validity, content validity, face validity, and reliability of the Dutch MPOC-SP were determined. SUBJECTS: The 163 service providers that participated in the validation study represented seven children's rehabilitation centres and affiliated schools in the Netherlands (overall response rate 55.6%). In this sample 19 disciplines were represented. MAIN MEASURES: The MPOC-SP consists of 27 items (assessing four domains) and was designed to examine how service providers think about the quality of care they provide and to assess the extent to which these services are family centred. Fifty-three service providers filled out an additional face validity questionnaire. RESULTS: All items correlated best and significantly with their own scale score (r(s) 0.48-0.82, P<0.001). The Pearson's correlation coefficients were all significant and confirmed that the four scales measure different aspects of a same construct, namely family-centred service. The content validity and the face validity of the Dutch MPOC-SP were good, indicating the questionnaire measures relevant aspects of family-centred service delivery in paediatric rehabilitation settings in the Netherlands. The test-retest analyses (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83-0.89) and the internal consistency analyses (alpha 0.65-0.84) showed that the Dutch MPOC-SP is a reliable tool. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch MPOC-SP is a reliable and valid instrument to measure the family-centredness of service delivery.
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 | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".