Validation of the Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) Rating Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) is a caregiver report questionnaire that is suitable for use with children who wear hearing aids. It is available in both a Diary format and a Rating Scale format. Following a critical review of subjective outcome evaluation tools for infants, toddlers, and preschool children (Bagatto, Moodie, Seewald et al, 2011), the Rating Scale version of the PEACH was included in a recently developed guideline for monitoring real-world auditory performance of children who have hearing loss (Bagatto, Moodie, Malandrino et al, 2011). Normative data exist only for the PEACH Diary, not the Rating Scale. PURPOSE: This article evaluates whether published normative data for the PEACH Diary (Ching and Hill, 2007) are replicated on a different sample of children using the PEACH Rating Scale. RESEARCH DESIGN: Fifty-nine children with normal hearing aged 2 mo to 83 mo and their primary caregivers participated in the study. Caregivers completed the PEACH Rating Scale for each child with normal hearing. RESULTS: Results indicated close agreement to existing normative data collected with the PEACH Diary, with no differences in scores between males and females and good internal consistency. Age-related trends published for the Diary version were replicated using the Rating Scale version, as significantly lower scores were observed for children 20 mo of age and younger compared to those older than 20 mo of age. CONCLUSIONS: The currently published norms for the PEACH Diary are valid for use with the PEACH Rating Scale with caregivers of normal hearing children. This validation work adds to the evidence base of the PEACH Rating Scale and supports its use in clinical practice.
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 | 0.024 | 0.041 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".