The reliability and validity of the perceive, recall, plan and perform assessment in children with a mitochondrial disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To investigate the reliability and validity of the Perceive, Recall, Plan and Perform System of Task Analysis (PRPP-Assessment) by parent-provided videos of children with mitochondrial disorders.Methods Videos of 13 children performing 3–7 activities each were the subject of study, resulting in 65 activities. These were scored using the PRPP-Assessment by 11 raters. Internal consistency was calculated with Cronbach’s alpha. Intra-rater reliability was evaluated by Bland-Altman Plots on 44 PRPP-Assessment scores. Inter-rater reliability was calculated with ICCAgreement on 128 PRPP-Assessment scores. Construct validity was assessed by comparing the PRPP-Assessment scores to the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure using Cohen’s Kappa. PRPP-Assessments scores were evaluated with a multi-faceted Rasch Analysis.Results Internal consistency was high (0.92). Intra-rater reliability was sufficient to be good (92–96% within the 95%-Limits of the Agreement). The ICCAgreement for stage 1 Mastery Score showed acceptable inter-rater reliability (0.646). Stage 2 of the PRPP-Assessment showed low ICCs due to a lack of variability within the sample. Four out of six hypotheses on validity were accepted. Rasch's analysis demonstrated sound goodness-of-fit, and supported the validity of the PRPP-Assessment.Conclusion The PRPP-Assessment by parent-provided videos in this heterogenic group showed sufficient to good psychometric properties. In practice, careful task selection and formulating criterion is recommended.Implications for RehabilitationPRPP-Assessment by parent-provided videos is reliable and valid in the complex, heterogenous group of children with mitochondrial disordersThe PRPP-Assessment is suitable for children with mitochondrial disorders as it showed to contain familiar, functional and meaningful tasks and activities that fit with their level of functioningProfessionals should be aware that parents might not be used to the criterium-based frame of reference of the PRPP-AssessmentWhen applying the PRPP-Assessment, it is recommended to be careful in task selection and formulating the criterion.
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 | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".