The performance quality rating scale (PQRS): reliability, convergent validity, and internal responsiveness for two scoring systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The performance quality rating scale (PQRS) is an observational measure of performance quality of client-selected, personally meaningful activities. It has been used inconsistently with different scoring systems, and there have been no formal publications on its psychometric properties. The purpose of this study was to test and compare the psychometric properties of two PQRS scoring systems in two populations. Methods: A secondary analysis of video recorded participant-selected activities from previous studies involving either adults living with stroke or children diagnosed with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) was conducted. Three pairs of raters scored the video recorded performances with PQRS operational definitions (PQRS-OD) and a generic rating system (PQRS-G). Results: For inter-rater reliability, PQRS-OD ICCs were substantial, ranging from 0.83 to 0.93; while the PQRS-G ICCs were moderate, ranging from 0.71 to 0.77. Test–retest reliability was substantial, >0.80 (ICC), for both rating systems across all rater pairs. Internal responsiveness was high for both rating systems. Convergent validity with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was inconsistent, with scores ranging from low to moderate. Conclusion: Both scoring systems have demonstrated they are reliable and have good internal responsiveness. The PQRS-OD demonstrated greater consistency across raters and is more sensitive to clinically important change than the PQRS-G and should be used when greater accuracy is required. Further exploration of validity with actual rather than perceived performance measures is required.Implications for RehabilitationThe PQRS provides clinicians and researchers with a means of measuring actual performance of self-selected activities.Rehabilitation scientists are encouraged to improve our understanding of the relationship between perceived and actual performance as a means to improve interventions and outcomes.
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 | 0.030 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".