Development and content validity of the youth and young-adult participation and environment measure (Y-PEM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate the content of a self-reported measure of participation and environment, named Youth, Young-adult Participation and Environment Measure (Y-PEM), capturing participation at home, school, community, and the workplace among individuals with physical disabilities aged 12-30. MATERIALS AND METHODS: = 15) were conducted for item development and validation. Relevancy and clarity of items in each setting were assessed using the 10-cm Visual Analogue Scales (VASs). RESULTS: Participants recommended adding activities specific to this age group (i.e., dating, caregiving, preparing meals, employment). On a 4-point Likert scale, work-related items were perceived important by experts (X̅ = 3.4) and young adults (X̅ = 3.1) with average clarity of 8.8 and relevancy of 8.4 out of 10, on the VASs. Similarly, the average clarity of items across settings (home, school, community) ranged from 6.9 to 8.7 and relevancy from 7.4 to 8.1. No modifications were required in environmental items. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that Y-PEM is clear, relevant, comprehensive, and can be completed by individuals aged 12-30 with physical disabilities.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe Y-PEM can provide a standardized and systematic method to assess the first-hand subjective experience of youth and young adults with disabilities aged 12-30 in their participation at home, school, community, and the workplace.The Y-PEM can provide information regarding participation in activities that prepare youth or young adults for the job market as well as their perspective on the environmental barriers or supports that they may face in their employment.Clinicians can use the Y-PEM to identify environmental barriers and facilitators that impact participation across different settings and address them to further promote participation in meaningful and age-related activities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".