Family‐centredness of a provincial autism programme: A quality assurance evaluation using the Measure of Processes of Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: University researchers worked with 13 children's service provider agencies to conduct a programme evaluation of parents' perceptions of the family-centredness of service spanning 3 years (January 2015 to May 2018). Parents of Ontario children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) receiving applied behaviour analysis (ABA) programming reported outcomes of their experience of family-centred services (FCS) using the 20-item Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC-20). The purpose of this paper is to report the outcomes of the quality assurance evaluation of FCS as measured by MPOC-20 among parents of children with ASD receiving ABA services. METHODS: A total of 11 490 surveys (from 21 571 potential respondents [53.3%]) were completed. Means and proportions were used to describe the demographics, service utilization and MPOC-20 scores with its 7-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest). RESULTS: = 5.51, SD = 1.43) the lowest. CONCLUSION: Given the consistently high MPOC scores found in this and other programme evaluations, it is believed that health service providers have caught up to the FCS quality standards proposed 30 years ago. For this reason, the developers of MPOC are now planning a revision of the measure to address its ceiling effects and to integrate contemporary perspectives on family-centred practice for children and their families.
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 | 0.028 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".