French version of the profiles of occupational engagement in people with severe mental illness: Translation, adaptation, and validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational engagement is affected in many persons with severe mental illness (SMI) because of personal, occupational, and environmental issues. However, no French assessment tool measuring occupational engagement in these persons is currently available. The objectives of the study were to translate the “Profiles of Occupational Engagement in People with Severe Mental Illness” (POES), including a time use diary and an interview, and to measure the interrater reliability of the French version. First, a transcultural validation process of the English version of the POES into French was completed. Second, to determine interrater reliability, ten evaluators assessed 23 participants with an SMI. Specific concepts were clarified with the author of the original tool. No items were added or removed following the translation process. An interview guide was developed to assist the interview on occupational engagement. Analyses indicated high interrater reliability (ICC = 0.94). French-speaking clinicians will be able to use a validated French version of the POES to better capture occupational engagement in people with SMI, facilitating the individualisation of interventions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".