MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593007547 · doi:10.1080/01942638.2017.1280870

Measuring Participation of Children and Environmental Factors at Home, School, and in Community: Construct Validation of the Korean PEM-CY

2017· article· en· W2593007547 on OpenAlexafffund
Yunwha Jeong, Mary Law, Paul W. Stratford, Carol DeMatteo, Cheryl Missiuna

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersDaegu UniversityMcMaster University
KeywordsConstruct validityConstruct (python library)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyPsychometricsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To determine construct validity of the Korean Participation and Environment Measure for Children and Youth (KPEM-CY) in South Korea. METHODS: A total of 184 parents of children with (n = 80) and without disabilities (n = 104) aged 5 to 13 years completed the KPEM-CY. Construct validity was analyzed by assessing differences in the participation and environment scores for children with and without disabilities across age and gender. RESULTS: Validity of the KPEM-CY was supported by significant differences in participation and environmental factors for subgroups (p < .05). Children with disabilities participated less in typical activities and had more environmental barriers than those without disabilities across all settings. Parents of children with disabilities reported a higher level of desire to change their children's participation patterns. Similar participation patterns and environmental factors, which were influenced by interaction effects between disability and age, were confirmed at home and in the community. CONCLUSIONS: KPEM-CY is a valid measure to assess participation and environmental factors in home, school, and community settings for Korean children, aged 5-13 years, with and without 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In PediatricsSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207