The development of the Pediatric Motivation Scale for rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicians recognize that client motivation is key to optimizing rehabilitation; however, they are limited in its assessment by a paucity of motivation measures. PURPOSE: This paper presents the preliminary psychometrics of the Pediatric Motivation Scale (PMOT) designed to measure motivation from a child's perspective. METHOD: Content validity of the PMOT was measured through expert feedback (n = 12), and field testing ocurred with 41 children, 21 in rehabilitation and 20 healthy. Pearson product-moment correlations were used to analyze subscale correlations, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity with the Pediatric Volitional Questionnaire (PVQ). Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha. FINDINGS: Preliminary psychometric evaluation indicates strong internal consistency for PMOT total (α = .96) and subscales (α = .79-.91). The PMOT and PVQ moderately correlated in the rehabilitation subsample (r = .71, p < .01); no correlation was found in the healthy subsample (p > .05). Test-retest reliability was excellent (r = .97). IMPLICATIONS: This study provides preliminary psychometric evidence of the PMOT for children undergoing rehabilitation. These pilot findings warrant ongoing scale development.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".