Examining parent and clinician views of a hospital-based pediatric neuropsychological service: a Canadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how pediatric neuropsychological evaluations support families and the child’s medical team is an important component of ensuring evidence-based care. For the first time within a Canadian context, we investigated the impact of neuropsychological assessments on parent knowledge, advocacy, and stress and the role of socioeconomic factors in parents’ perceptions of the assessment. Responses from referring clinicians were also examined. As part of a hospital quality improvement project, 91 parents of children between the ages of 3 and 17 years (M = 8y7m; SD = 4y1m) and 45 clinician consumers (clinical staff who use neuropsychological services) completed one of two online questionnaires in English: Parent Overall Assessment of Supports and Testing, or Clinician Overall Assessment of Supports and Testing. Most parents indicated the neuropsychological evaluation promoted understanding of their child’s cognitive profile and improved their ability to support their child at home and at school or in the community. Families characterized as being at higher social risk indicated that the evaluation led to more changes in how they approached their child at home than families with lower social risk status. Referring clinicians indicated neuropsychological reports were effective in communicating findings to them and patients/families. The most valuable sections of the report according to referring clinicians included the diagnosis/impression and recommendations sections. Parents and referral providers reported many benefits from the neuropsychological evaluation but also identified areas for service delivery improvement. Parent perceptions varied based on family and socio environmental factors, offering important targets for future research and clinical consideration.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".