Measurement of intervention fidelity within paediatric rehabilitation for children with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intervention fidelity examines the degree to which an intervention is delivered as planned. Generic fidelity measures incorporate the active ingredients of more than one intervention and characteristics common to all interventions. Three studies were conducted to define the active ingredients of intervention for children with physical disabilities and generate a generic fidelity measure. These studies involved: (1) describing generic fidelity measures; (2) generating essential attributes of paediatric rehabilitation; and (3) differentiating between two interventions to consistently rate the behaviours of the therapist, child and parent. (1) In a narrative review of generic fidelity measures, five measures were identified within the psychotherapy literature. These measures presented a variety of approaches to examine fidelity, described psychometric property standards, and highlighted 37 non-specific intervention items that were relevant to paediatric rehabilitation. (2) A consensus process with eight experts and interviews with seventeen clinicians working with children with physical disabilities generated 35 attributes that highlighted the general observed therapist and client behaviours essential within a successful intervention session. (3) The Paediatric Rehabilitation Observational measure of Fidelity (PROF) was developed (30 items) to evaluate specific and non-specific behaviours within two occupational therapy and physiotherapy interventions for children with cerebral palsy. Six trained raters examined 25 intervention videos for psychometric testing. Results indicated that the PROF demonstrated good to excellent Inter-rater reliability and early construct validity. These studies present an important starting point to observe and measure the active ingredients within paediatric rehabilitation, incorporating its dynamic nature involving the child and parent within the therapy process.
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 | 0.052 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".