Construct validity of the family impact of assistive technology scale for augmentative and alternative communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Family Impact of Assistive Technology Scale for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (FIATS-AAC) measures parent-reported functioning and factors that affect functioning in children who use AAC. The aim of the current study was to assess its construct validity. For the study, 47 parents of children with AAC needs completed the FIATS-AAC and two other parent-reported questionnaires: a child quality-of-life measure and a community participation measure. An interview was also conducted with a sub-set of six parents. The FIATS-AAC showed a significant correlation with the child quality-of-life measure, but no significant associations with the community participation measure. Interviews suggested some consistency between parents' perceptions of their child's communicative functioning after comparing their FIATS-AAC scores and interview responses. This study provides evidence for the emerging construct validity of the FIATS-AAC as a measure linked to psychosocial aspects of quality-of-life in children with AAC needs between the ages of 6- and 12-years.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".