Measures used to quantify participation in childhood disability and their alignment with the family of participation‐related constructs: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: We aimed to identify measures used to assess the participation of disabled children and to map the measures' content to the family of participation-related constructs (fPRC) to inform future research and practice. METHOD: Six databases were searched to identify measures used to assess participation in health, psychology, and education research. Included studies involved children aged 0 to 18 years with a permanent impairment or developmental disability and reported use of a quantitative measure of participation. A second search sought relevant literature about each identified measure (including published manuals) to allow a comprehensive understanding of the measure. Measurement constructs of frequently reported measures were then mapped to the fPRC. RESULTS: From an initial yield of 32 767 articles, 578 reported one or more of 118 participation measures. Of these, 51 measures were reported in more than one article (our criterion) and were therefore eligible for mapping to the fPRC. Twenty-one measures quantified aspects of participation attendance, 10 quantified aspects of involvement as discrete scales, and four quantified attendance and involvement in a manner that could not be separated. INTERPRETATION: Improved understanding of participation and its related constructs is developing rapidly; thoughtful selection of measures in research is critical to further our knowledge base. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: The fPRC can support our rapidly evolving and expanding understanding of participation. Instruments selected to measure participation do not always align with emerging concepts. Matching research aims to a chosen measure's content will improve understanding of participation. Opportunities exist to develop validated participation measures, especially self-reported measures of involvement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".