Beginning power mobility: An exploration of factors associated with child use of early power mobility devices and parent device preference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Describe and compare young children’s use of four early power mobility devices and examine associations between child and environmental factors that may influence power mobility use and parent device preference. Design Cross-sectional observational study. Methods Power Mobility Days introduced four devices: Wizzybug, Bugzi, Tiger Cub, and a switch-adapted ride-on toy car in a single 60–90 min, play-based session. Results A convenience sample of 74 children, aged 9–68 months (mean: 32.45, SD: 14.08) with mobility limitations, and their parents participated. Children had a range of motor, postural and communication profiles, with cerebral palsy being the most common condition ( n = 55; 73.33%). Assessment of Learning Powered mobility use phase achieved ranged from 1 to 6; mean: 2.34; median: 2. For children who tried all four devices ( n = 51), Friedman test (χ 2 : 8.27, p = 0.04) suggests Assessment of Learning Powered mobility use phase differs across devices. Of 73 parents who identified a device preference, 43 (59%) chose Wizzybug. Regression analyses suggest that access method and communication function may influence children’s power mobility use, while age, access and postural support requirements may influence parent device choice. Discussion Parent impressions of an early power mobility device may be influenced by many factors, yet be less influenced by child performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".