Exploring the functional impact of adaptive seating on the lives of individual children and their families: a collective case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined parent-reported change in the functional performance of four school-aged children with wheeled mobility needs who had used a new adaptive seating system for 6 weeks. METHODS: The collective case study involved four mothers whose children, ages 6-9 years, received a new adaptive seating system for a manual wheelchair or stroller. Mothers completed the Family Impact of Assistive Technology Scale for Adaptive Seating (FIATS-AS) at the time their child received a new seating system, and then after 6 weeks of daily use. Other questionnaires, health records, and semi-structured interviews provided additional data about the seating interventions and their functional effects on individual children and their families. RESULTS: The FIATS-AS detected overall functional gain in one family, and both gains and losses in 2-7 dimensions for all families. Functional status and change scores showed consistency with measures of seating intervention satisfaction, global functional change, and home participation. Interview themes also suggested consistency with change scores, but provided a deeper understanding of important factors that influenced adaptive seating outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study supports the need to explore further the complexity, temporality and meaningfulness of adaptive seating outcomes in individual children and their families. Implications for Rehabilitation Assistive technology practitioners need to adopt practical measurement strategies that consider the complexity, temporality, and meaningfulness of outcomes to make evidence-informed decisions about how to improve adaptive seating services and interventions. Health measurement scales that measure adaptive seating outcomes for service applications must have adequate levels of reliability and validity, as well as demonstrate responsive to important change over time for individual children and their families. Needs-specific measurement scales provide a promising avenue for understanding functional outcomes for individual children and youth who use adaptive seating systems.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".