Exploring validation of a graphic symbol questionnaire to measure participation experiences of youth in activity settings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participation has a subjective and private dimension, and so it is important to hear directly from youth about their experiences in various activity settings, the places where they “do things” and interact with others. To meet this need, our team developed the Self-Reported Experiences of Activity Settings (SEAS) measure, which demonstrated good-to-excellent measurement properties. To address the needs of youth who could benefit from graphic symbol support, the SEAS-PCSTM,1 was created. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of SEAS-PCS and the preliminary study that explores the equivalency of the SEAS and SEAS-PCS. The SEAS and SEAS-PCS were compared in terms of the equivalency of meaning of stimulus items by 11 professionals and five adults who used augmentative and alternative communication, were familiar with PCS, and were fluent readers. Out of 22 items, 68% were rated as highly similar on a 5-point scale (M = 4.14; SD = .70; mdn = 4; range: 2.81–5.00). Subsequently, the 32% of the SEAS-PCS items that were rated below 4 were modified based on the participants’ specific comments. Further work is required to validate the SEAS-PCS. The next step could involve exploring the views of youth who use AAC.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it