The Sound Access Parent Outcomes Instrument (SAPOI): Construction of a new instrument for children with severe multiple disabilities who use cochlear implants or hearing aids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report on the Phase 2 development of the Sound Access Parent Outcomes Instrument (SAPOI), a new instrument focused on formalizing outcomes that parents of children with severe multiple disabilities (SMD) who use amplification prioritize as important. METHODS: Phase 2 of this project involved item selection and refinement of the SAPOI based on (a) Phase 1 study participant input, (b) clinical specialist feedback, and (c) test-retest instrument reliability. Phase 1 participant responses were utilized to construct a draft version of the SAPOI. Next, clinical specialists examined the instrument for content validity and utility and instrument reliability was examined through a test-retest process with parents of children with SMD. RESULTS: The draft SAPOI was constructed based on Phase 1 participant input. Clinical specialists supported content validity and utility of the instrument and the inclusion of 19 additional items across four categories, namely Child Affect, Child Interaction, Parent Well-being, and Child's Device Use. The SAPOI was completed twice at one-month intervals by parents of children with SMD to examine instrument reliability across the four categories (Child Affect, Child Interaction, Parent Well-being, and Child's Device Use). Instrument reliability was strong-to-excellent across all four sections. DISCUSSION: The SAPOI shows promise as a much-needed addition to the assessment battery currently used for children with SMD who use cochlear implants and hearing aids. It provides valuable information regarding outcomes resulting from access to sound in this population that currently used assessments do not identify.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".