A theory of program evaluation practices in disability management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This grounded theory study developed a theory of evaluation in disability management programs. Disability management involves managing the interactions between health condition impairments and their environments to overcome functional barriers. A sample of four sites was selected each site representing a different paradigm of disability management practices: biomedical, labour, biopsychosocial or insurance. Data collection included semi-structured interviews with 9 participants, including an administrator and practitioner from each site, the Readiness for Organizational Learning and Evaluation Instrument, and documents from each site were analyzed. There were five major findings of the study. 1) Meaningful disability management program evaluation requires insight into how impairment environment interactions are being managed by the program. 2) The presence or absence of collaboration among stakeholders contributes significantly to the variability in disability management and disability management evaluation. 3) Understanding how disability management programs are adapting to contextual influences contributes significantly to an explanation of variability in disability management and disability management evaluation. 4) There are five primary disability management evaluation criteria: return to work, cost savings, timeliness of services, client satisfaction, and client functioning. 5) Disability management evaluation followed a consumer working logic approach, and was predominantly concerned with usefulness of services, and secondarily framed from perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Additionally, disability management programs and their funding organizations are increasingly using technology to develop new data management systems for future use in evaluation.
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 | 0.053 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".