Family centered measurement: development of an engagement guideline for the challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6-mos post).At the time of submission, 55 provided pre and post, plus 38 completed 6-mos measures.All scoring was blind to treatment.Results: Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences in PSS scores across therapy groups or between pre-and post-treatment.Baseline stress levels were compared to known U.S. stress levels via one-sample t-tests and were comparable (i.e., parent stress not elevated in this clinical group).In the P-CIMT groups, 74% reported pre-treatment stress concerning the use of a constraint, but by post-treatment only 44% reported any stress from constraint during the treatment, with slightly higher levels in the cast versus splint groups.Stress related to constraint declined after the first few days of therapy.Additionally, 38% identified concerns related to therapy intensity before treatment, but only 3% reported that quantity of therapy received was too much, while 18% reported it was not enough.Therapy occurring in the home was not a significant stressor pre-or post-treatment.At 6 months post-treatment, 42% of parents reported stress conducting the recommended home-activities with child behavior and time constraints being contributing factors.Conclusions/Significance: This study provides evidence that parents of children with CP do not have elevated stress levels prior to P-CIMT compared to the general population.Parents do have some anticipatory (mild to moderate) stress associated with P-CIMT, mostly related to concerns about constraint and to a lesser degree the high intensity (but not to providing treatment in the home).This stress diminishes after therapy starts.Overall, P-CIMT does not create significant parent stress and all parents reported observing benefits from P-CIMT.
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 | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".