The uses of outcome measures within multidisciplinary early childhood intervention services: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of the article: To review the use of outcome measures, across the domains of activity, participation, and environment, within multidisciplinary early childhood intervention services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken that included four electronic databases: Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library and Cochrane Database of Systematic Review. Inclusion criteria were age 0-24 months, having or at risk of a developmental disability, in receipt of multidisciplinary early childhood intervention services, and included outcome measures across all domains of the International Classification of Functioning-Child & Youth (ICF-CY). Only peer-reviewed journal articles were considered. Eligible studies were coded using the Oxford Levels of Evidence. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale for randomised controlled trials and the QualSyst for non-randomised control trials. RESULTS: Of the total of 5764 records identified, 10 were considered to meet inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: Fourteen outcome measures were identified, addressing the domains of activity, participation, and environment. Of these, eight have been recommended in the early intervention literature. While the methodological quality of the 10 studies varied, these papers make a contribution to the body of research that acknowledges the role of routine and enriched environments. Implications for Rehabilitation Core practice elements of multidisciplinary early childhood intervention services indicate it is necessary to select outcome measures framed within the International Classification of Functioning-Child & Youth to inform clinical decision-making for measuring intervention effectiveness across the domains of activity, participation and environment. Of the identified measures, three (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory, and Goal Attainment Scaling) are well-established and identified in the literature as multidisciplinary outcome measures for children with developmental disability. The selection of an appropriate outcome measure depends on the age of the child, individual goals of the family, and the type of intervention. This requires the combination of measures as no one measure alone will capture all components of the International Classification of Functioning-Child & Youth.
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 | 0.039 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".