Cross-cultural validation and psychometric evaluation of the Dutch language version of the Children’s Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment (CAPE) in children with and without physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess construct validity, test-retest reliability and inter-interviewer reliability of the intensity dimension of the Children's Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment (CAPE) for children with and without physical disabilities in the Netherlands. SUBJECTS: In total, 232 children aged 6-18 years (110 male, 122 female) participated. Seventy-four children with various physical disabilities and 158 without a disability. DESIGN: Participants completed the CAPE and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. In addition, parents of 142 children were interviewed using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales and the Family Environment Scale. For 71 children test- retest reliability and for 60 children inter-interviewer reliability were assessed. Validity was examined by assessing differences in participation intensity in children with disabilities versus without a physical disability, boys versus girls, and younger versus older children. In addition, 13 hypotheses regarding participation, child and family variables were examined. RESULTS: Validity of the CAPE was supported by significant differences in participation for subgroups. Participation differed significantly in children with and without disabilities. Girls participated more in all activities. Older children participated more in social activities and self-improvement activities, younger children participated more in recreational activities. Validity of the CAPE was further supported with significant correlation coefficients in 8 out of 13 hypotheses. Both test-retest and inter-interviewer reliability were good to excellent. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the Dutch language version of the CAPE is a reliable and valid instrument to measure participation in recreation and leisure activities for children with and without physical disabilities aged 6-18 years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".