Parents’ and Therapists’ Satisfaction with Four Early Childhood Power Mobility Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Little is known about satisfaction with power mobility devices used by young children. Purpose. Parents’ and therapists’ satisfaction with four early childhood power mobility devices were examined. Method. A two-phased study, comprising Trial Phase cross-sectional design and Loan Phase one-group pretest-posttest design. Parents and therapists of children 9 months to 6 years with mobility limitations completed the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction of Assistive Technology 2.0 Device Subscale (QUEST8) plus an additional device Aesthetics rating. Findings. Seventy-four parents and 42 therapists from 18 child development and rehabilitation centres participated. Parent and therapist median QUEST8 and Aesthetics scores varied across devices when trialled and over the six-month loan. Favourable median ratings had no statistically significant differences between parents and therapists. Parent ratings decreased statistically over loan period although therapists’ ratings did not. Device dimensions, safety, and aesthetics were highly rated. Implications. Similarities and differences exist among parent and therapist ratings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".