Validation of the measure of processes of care for adults: a measure of client-centred care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychometric properties of the measure of processes of care for adults (MPOC-A), a measure of client-centredness of care for parents of children with disabilities, adapted for adult health-care settings. DESIGN: A validation study. SETTING: Regional orthopaedic service of a university-affiliated hospital in ON, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: All patients and families who had had joint replacement surgery (Knee or Hip) between January and August of 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: MPOC-A and the client satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ). RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-six questionnaires filled out by patients and 81 by family members were analysed. Scales demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha varying from 0.81 to 0.93 for patients and from 0.88 to 0.96 for family members). MPOC-A domain scores were moderately correlated with CSQ total scores (Pearson coefficients varying from 0.44 to 0.66 for patients and from 0.53 to 0.72 for family members). Moderate to good inter-rater agreement [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) from 0.50 to 0.74] and high test-retest reliability were found (ICCs varying from 0.73 to 0.83 for patients and from 0.75 to 0.91 for family members). CONCLUSIONS: MPOC-A has demonstrated good psychometric properties. As general satisfaction scores are notoriously poor indicators of the quality of care, this measure can help us understand the elements that contribute to overall judgements of satisfaction and provide a level of understanding that is important to improve service quality and 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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".