Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Reliability of Child-Initiated Pretend Play Assessment (ChIPPA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Play is an indication of a children's development. Purpose. Organize a culturally adapt the Child-Initiated Pretend Play Assessment to Brazilian population. METHOD: Translation and cultural adaptation procedures consisted of translation, synthesis, back translation, author's approval, and pretest of the assessment. For the pretest, 14 typically developing children were assessed. Was evaluated the use of play materials, duration of the assessment, and reliability. FINDINGS: Play materials and duration of the assessment were appropriate for Brazilian children. Analysis of intra-rater reliability showed good agreement ranging from 0.90 to 1.00. Inter-rater reliability showed good to moderate agreement for five items ranging from 0.76 to 0.59. Four items showed chance to poor agreement (rho = -0.13 to 0.50). IMPLICATIONS: Results of the pretest indicate the Brazilian version of the ChlPPA is potentially useful for Brazilian children. ChlPPA training in Portuguese in Brazil with play observation feedback is recommended to improve inter-rater reliability.
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 | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".