Analyse Critique D'instruments de Mesure Des AVQ en Pédiatrie: Déficits Exécutifs et Indépendance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the assessment of the activities of daily living (ADL) through task analysis is central to the role of the occupational therapists working with children with traumatic brain injury (TBI), no review has revealed any study aimed at analyzing the instruments used to this effect, in regard to their potential to highlight the deficits associated with the executive functions (e.g., formulate a goal, planning). PURPOSE: To determine if any ADL assessment tools validated for children 10 to 15 years with a TBI consider executive functions. METHODS: Four tools, i.e., "Assessment of Motor and Process Skills' the "Children's Kitchen Task Assessment', the "Chocolate Cake Task" and the "ADL Profile' were analyzed according to the following criteria: 1) complexity of the tasks, 2) non-structured assessment method, and 3) psychometric properties appropriate for the target population. RESULTS: These tools are only partially consistent with the desired criteria. CONCLUSION: Further research on these tools will be necessary to meet the needs of this population.
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 | 0.022 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".