MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113647126 · doi:10.3390/children8010007

The Relative Merits of an Individualized Versus a Generic Approach to Rating Functional Performance in Childhood Dystonia

2020· article· en· W3113647126 on OpenAlexaff
Hortensia Gimeno, Jessica Strohm Farber, Jessica Thornton, Helene J. Polatajko

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsRating scaleIntervention (counseling)DystoniaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyObservational studyRehabilitationPsychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The Performance Quality Rating Scale (PQRS) is an observational measure that captures performance at the level of activity and participation. Developed for use with the Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP), it is a highly individualized approach to measurement. CO-OP is currently being studied in childhood-onset hyperkinetic movement disorders (HMD) and deep brain stimulation. The purpose of this study was to compare two different approaches to rating performance, generic (PQRS-G) and individualized (PQRS-I), for children with childhood-onset hyperkinetic movement disorders (HMD) including dystonia. METHOD: Videotaped activity performances, pre and post intervention were independently scored by two blind raters using PQRS-G PQRS-I. Results were examined to determine if the measures identified differences in e performance on goals chosen by the participants and on change scores after intervention. Dependent t-tests were used to compare performance and change scores. RESULTS: The two approaches to rating both have moderate correlations (all data: 0.764; baseline: 0.677; post-intervention: 0.725) and yielded some different results in capturing performance. There was a significant difference in scores at pre-intervention between the two approaches to rating, even though post-intervention score mean difference was not significantly different. The PQRS-I had a wider score range, capturing wider performance differences, and greater change between baseline and post-intervention performances for children and young people with dystonic movement. CONCLUSIONS: Best practice in rehabilitation requires the use of outcome measures that optimally captures performance and performance change for children and young people with dystonic movement. When working with clients with severe motor-performance deficits, PQRS-I appears to be the better approach to capturing performance and performance changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildrenSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207