Assessing communicative participation in preschool children with the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe uses of the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS) in research with children with and without various communication disorders since its publication in 2010. METHOD: Six databases were searched for the term 'Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six'. With additional searches we ascertained 70 articles, of which 25 met inclusion criteria for full review and data extraction. RESULTS: The FOCUS has been used in research across multiple countries, purposes, populations, contexts, and versions. Evaluative studies have described: the development of children's communicative participation skills and factors that impact the development of communicative participation; the impact of specific interventions on communicative participation; how FOCUS captures change relative to measures of impairment; and how FOCUS performs when used at different intervals. Adaptations have included: use of the FOCUS as a descriptive or discriminative tool; use with children outside the validated age range; use of select items; and use with typically developing children. INTERPRETATION: The FOCUS is used worldwide in research and practice, and much has been learned about children's communicative participation. Future research is needed to explore the relationship between children's impairments and their communicative participation, develop a FOCUS App, and develop and validate a FOCUS for school-age children.
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 | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".