The construct validity of the Dutch version of the activity card sort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Establishing construct validity of the ACS-NL in individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHOD: Discriminative validity was established in 191 community-dwelling individuals with PD using an extreme groups design (Hoehn and Yahr stages 1 and 3). Convergent validity was determined by relating the performance scores of the ACS-NL to the scores of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) scores, and relating ACS-NL satisfaction scores to the COPM scores and to the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation Participation (USER-P). RESULTS: The ACS-NL discriminated between individuals with PD with H&Y stages 1 and 3 (U = 524.5, Z = -5.453). ACS-NL performance scores correlated weakly with COPM scores (r = (0).19) and moderately with PDQ-39 scores (r = 0.44-0.55). The ACS-NL satisfaction scores correlated weakly with COPM scores (r = 0.23), and moderately with USER-P scores (r ≥ 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: This study contributed to the validation of the ACS-NL. The assessment enhances the possibility of monitoring participation in activities in individuals with PD. Implications for Rehabilitation The ACS-NL appears to hold good potential for use in the assessment of participation in activities in individuals with PD. The ACS-NL has added value parallel to administration of other instruments measuring participation (COPM) and quality of life (PDQ-39). This study demonstrates the capacity of the ACS to measure a unique construct of participation and helps to improve the psychometric properties and administration of the ACS-NL in practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".