Criterion validity of a home health aide's algorithm for recommending bathroom equipment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists are experts at adapting bathroom environments. However, to increase access to services, the algorithm "Préalables aux soins d'hygiène" (French for "Prerequisites for bathing care") has been developed to be used by trained home health aides to recommend bathroom equipment. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the criterion validity of the algorithm by measuring the level of agreement between an occupational therapist's recommendations (gold standard) and those made by four home health aides using the algorithm. METHODS: Community-living adults with bathing difficulties (n = 96) were visited by both types of evaluators. FINDINGS: Home health aides correctly identified clinical situations in which they should feel confident about their ability (sensitivity: 96%, specificity: 69%) and, apart from type of bathing seat (K(W) = 0.63 [0.52; 0.75]), agreement between recommendations varied from substantial to almost perfect (delta > or = 0.72). IMPLICATIONS: Results increase confidence in the algorithm, but other studies are needed to ensure population safety and fulfil the occupational therapist's obligations.
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 | 0.046 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".