Psychometric properties of home accessibility assessment tools: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Although home environment assessments are commonly performed by occupational therapists working in home care, use of nonstandardized measures created in-house or lack of measure use can cast a shadow over the quality of these assessments for people with disabilities. To ensure quality of home environment assessments, occupational therapists need standardized measures with demonstrated psychometric properties. PURPOSE.: This study provides a critical appraisal of objective accessibility measures of the home environment. METHOD.: A systematic review was undertaken for which three databases-CINAHL, PubMed, and Embase-were searched to identify accessibility measures of the home environment and evaluate their psychometric properties. Two authors independently assessed the quality of selected studies using the critical appraisal form for psychometric articles. FINDINGS.: Ten studies discussing seven accessibility measures were identified and selected for this review. No measures showed strong evidence of both good reliability and validity. Only one study addressed the responsiveness of a measure of accessibility. IMPLICATIONS.: As occupational therapists are specialists of the person-environment relationship, the lack of evidence of the psychometric properties of objective accessibility measures of the home environment harms evidence-based occupational therapy practice. This review identified the most promising assessment tools, but further research is needed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".