Reliability and validity of the Assessment of Client's Enablement (ACE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Goal-setting in client-centred occupational therapy is often problematic. The Assessment of Client's Enablement was developed to measure the gap between an occupational therapist's and client's ratings of occupational performance. This study examines the reliability and convergent validity of the assessment. Method The assessment was used by 22 occupational therapists with 44 clients. Convergent validity was examined between the assessment (client, occupational therapist and gap scores), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure performance and Functional Independence Measure scores. Test–retest reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient. Forty-four clients participated in the test–retest reliability study. Findings Good-to-moderate correlation was found in the assessment scores (intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.86, 0.95 and 0.78 for client, occupational therapist and gap scores, respectively). The validation study was completed by 34 clients. The correlation between Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and Assessment of Client's Enablement scores was significant (client score, Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation (rs) = 0.47; occupational therapist score, rs = 0.45). The correlation between Functional Independence Measure and the assessment's occupational therapist scores was significant (rs = 0.43). Conclusion The study confirms the reliability and convergent validity of the Assessment of Client's Enablement. The assessment requires less time to administer than similar instruments and requires no formal training, making it feasible in rehabilitation settings.
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 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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".