Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Evaluation of the Participation and Environment Measure for Children and Youth to the Indian Context—A Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Culturally appropriate measures enable knowledge transfer and quality improvement of rehabilitation services in diverse contexts. The Applied Cultural Equivalence Framework (ACEF) was used in a two-phased mixed methods study to adapt and evaluate the Participation and Environment Measure-Children and Youth (PEM-CY) in India. Cognitive interviews with caregivers of children with disabilities (n = 15) aged 5–17 years established conceptual, item, semantic, and operational equivalence of the Indian PEM-CY. Construct validity was assessed by comparing PEM-CY scores of children with and without disabilities (n = 130) using a case-control design. Cognitive interviews resulted in operational (60.3%), semantic (26.4%), and item-level (13.2%) modifications in the PEM-CY with no changes at the conceptual level. Internal consistency (n = 130) was acceptable to excellent (0.61–0.87) on most scales. Test–retest reliability (n = 30) was good to excellent (ICC ≥ 0.75, Kappa 0.6–1.0) for most scales. Significant differences in all PEM-CY summary scores were found between children with and without disabilities, except for environmental supports. Children with disabilities had lower scores on frequency and involvement in activities across all settings; their caregivers desired greater change in participation and reported experiencing more environmental barriers across settings. Findings suggest the adapted PEM-CY is a valid and reliable measure for assessing the participation of Indian 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 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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".