Validation of the Chinese version of the Assessment of Preschool Children’s Participation for children with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Assessment of Preschool Children's Participation (APCP-C). METHOD: The APCP, a measure of participation in play, skill development, active physical, and social activities of preschool children, was translated into Traditional Chinese. Data on 94 Taiwanese children with physical disabilities aged 2 to 6 years were analyzed. RESULTS: Internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.85 and 0.86) and test-retest reliability (ICCs = 0.79) were excellent for total scores, and varied from excellent to poor for activity type scores. Items were generally relevant to the Taiwanese culture. Correlations between scores for the APCP-C and the Chinese version of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Mobility and Social Functioning scales in general supported convergent validity (r = 0.33-0.68) but less support for discriminant validity. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide evidence of reliability, cross-cultural validity, and limited support for construct validity of the APCP-C in measuring participation of children with physical disabilities.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".