Occupational Repertoire Development Measure – Parent (ORDM-P): Face validity, comprehensiveness, and internal consistency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction An occupational repertoire is the array of occupations that an individual has the perceived capacity to perform at a specific point in time. The Occupational Repertoire Development Measure – Parent is a new tool that uses parent report to identify the occupations children can and do perform and their interests in and opportunities for doing them. This study aimed to test the face validity, comprehensiveness, and internal consistency of the Occupational Repertoire Development Measure – Parent as a tool to measure the occupational repertoire of children aged between 2 and 12 years. Method Twenty-nine occupational therapists completed an online questionnaire about the Occupational Repertoire Development Measure – Parent, and 27 parents completed it and then provided feedback via a structured interview. Descriptive statistics, content analysis, and the content validity index guided data analysis. Results Participants view the Occupational Repertoire Development Measure – Parent as practical, simple, and supportive of occupation-centred practice to optimize children’s development of a meaningful repertoire. Overall, self-care occupations were rated highly relevant. Lower-scoring occupations were those perceived as performed only by older children, nonessential for children with disabilities, or culturally unimportant. Conclusion Results indicate value in the further development of the Occupational Repertoire Development Measure – Parent and validate that it asks relevant questions to understand a child’s performance, engagement, and opportunities, leading to optimal repertoire development.
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 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".