Assessing resiliency in paediatric rehabilitation: A critical review of assessment tools and applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS: Resiliency has attracted a growing interest in paediatric rehabilitation as a key capacity for disabled children and their families to thrive. This study aimed to identify measures used to assess resiliency of disabled children/youth and their families and critically appraise the current use of resiliency measures to inform future research and practice. METHODS: A two-stage search strategy was employed. First, systematic reviews of resiliency measures published since 2000 were searched. Second, full names of measures identified in at least two systematic reviews were searched across four electronic databases. Included studies assessed resiliency among children/youth (0-18 years old) with chronic health conditions and/or disabilities and their families. Identified articles were then analysed to discern the study's definition of resiliency, authors' rationales for measurement selection, and types of perceived adversities facing the study participants. RESULTS: From an initial yield of 25 measures identified in five systematic reviews, 11 were analysed in two or more reviews. The second stage yielded 41 empirical studies published between 2012 and 2018, which used 8 of the 11 resiliency measures searched by name. Of 41, 17 studies measured resiliency of disabled children/youth, 23 assessed resiliency within family members, and 1 studied both children/youth and their families. Our critical appraisal identified inconsistencies between the studies' definition of resiliency and chosen measures' operationalization, implicit assumption of disabilities as a developmental risk that automatically results in life adversities, and the tendency among family studies to reduce resiliency down to stress coping skills. Research that encompasses contextual factors and developmental influences is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a situated measurement approach that captures multiple interacting factors shaping resiliency over one's life course. Resiliency measures would benefit from a greater focus on a person-environment transaction and an alternative definition of resiliency that accounts for multiple capacities to navigate through disabling environments.
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 | 0.081 | 0.276 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.041 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".