Exploration of the Feasibility of Remote Assessment of Functioning in Children and Adolescents with Developmental Disabilities: Parents’ Perspectives and Related Contextual Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted face-to-face health services, leveraging telehealth strategies. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate, from a parent’s perspective, the feasibility of a remote assessment of functioning in children with developmental disabilities during the pandemic and related contextual factors, based on how parents carry out the assessment. Parents of children with developmental disabilities (mean age = 7.56 ± 3.68) responded to a remote assessment via electronic forms and telephone interview. We analyzed parents’ perspectives about the feasibility of the assessment. We also tested the association between feasibility score and sociodemographics/pandemic experience. Regression analysis tested if children’s functioning characteristics predicted feasibility. A total of 57 mothers completed the remote assessment, and more than 95% did not report difficulties in accessing/responding to electronic forms. They scored remote assessment as easy and feasible, and reported no difficulties with telephone interview. Greater feasibility rates were related to lower maternal age (rho Spearman = −0.290; p = 0.029). The model shows that children’s characteristics predicted 20.4% of feasibility (p < 0.005). Remote assessment showed to be feasible. Younger mothers might consider easier-to-use technologies, beyond considering remote assessment more viable. These results can guide the next steps in research and remote clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".