The use of the Rotterdam Transition Profile: 10 years in review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this literature review was to describe the use and utility of the Rotterdam Transition Profile (RTP), as we near the tenth year since its publication in 2008. It is a tool to summarize a youth’s transition process to adulthood by classifying various domains of participation and health care into developmental stages. This review provided a comprehensive synthesis of available knowledge on the RTP by summarizing published and grey literature. Using search terms related to transition, social participation, and questionnaire, a systematic search was conducted for literature up to November 2017 in MEDLINE and Embase databases, and was supplemented with a hand-search using Google Scholar and a general internet search using Google Search. Inclusion criteria were specified to determine the papers selected for review, yielding fifty-five materials for detailed review. Combined analysis of published and grey literature identified nine papers that used some form of the RTP as a measure, 18 materials that cited the RTP or its domains but did not employ it as a measure, and twenty-eight materials that cited the original RTP development and validation paper for information not directly related to the RTP. The literature demonstrated that the RTP seems to be a useful tool to describe and monitor the transition process of adolescents and young adults, in both research and clinical settings. While it has been used with youth of 14–31 years of age across genders and health conditions, more evidence is needed to demonstrate its psychometric properties beyond construct validity in young adults with cerebral palsy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".