The Promise of Participatory Evaluation in Family-Centered Rehabilitation Settings: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Family-centered service philosophy (FCS) is an important contextual aspect of many pediatric rehabilitation programs. It recognizes the importance of supporting family relationships and the benefits of active family participation in all aspects of programming. Unfortunately, many professionals often overlook FCS philosophy when designing and implementing evaluations. Given the emphasis that participatory evaluation places on collaboration and the engagement of stakeholders, it appears to be theoretically compatible with FCS philosophy. Purpose: To explore parents’ and staff members’ perceptions of participatory program evaluation, including its congruence with family-centered service (FCS) philosophy, as well as the feasibility and practicality of using participatory program evaluation within pediatric rehabilitation centers.Setting: The study was conducted at two urban pediatric rehabilitation centers in Ontario, Canada.Intervention: Not applicable.Design: Qualitative exploration.Data Collection and Analysis: The study included qualitative interviews, focus groups and a thematic analysis. Findings: Participants described how participatory evaluation, in congruence with FCS philosophy, would increase the relevance of program evaluations for families, help support program interventions, assist in the development of clinician-parent relationships, and facilitate the empowerment of families. They also described how a lack of time, funding, and training, as well as variations in the priorities and interests of families presented challenges for using participatory evaluation within their centers.
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 | 0.116 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".