MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324055202 · doi:10.1097/jpo.0000000000000462

Content Validity of a Collaborative Goal-Setting Pictorial Tool for Children Who Wear Ankle-Foot Orthoses: A Modified Delphi Consensus Study

2023· article· en· W4324055202 on OpenAlexaff
Elaine Owen, Mary Rahlin, Kyra Kane

Bibliographic record

VenueJPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelphi methodDelphiLikert scaleContent validityThematic analysisPhysical therapyScale (ratio)MedicinePsychologyMedical educationApplied psychologyComputer scienceQualitative researchClinical psychologyArtificial intelligencePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Introduction To determine the optimum prescription and dosage for an ankle-foot orthosis and footwear, clinicians and families need to agree on goals for intervention. To facilitate family-centered collaborative goal setting, a table of potential goals and its pictorial representation had been developed previously. These tools incorporated the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) clinical objectives for orthoses and were structured in an approach understandable to families. This study aimed to obtain consensus on the content validity of the Table and Pictorial Tools. Methods Seventeen experts from seven countries (orthotists, physical therapists, physicians, surgeons, and engineers) were invited. A modified Delphi technique was used to evaluate and refine the Table Tool (rounds 1 and 2) and Pictorial Tool (rounds 3 and 4). Participants rated their agreement with overall tool structure, content, and feasibility of use on a 4-point Likert scale, and provided open-ended feedback. Consensus was defined as a median score ≥3 (agree) with 75% of responses ≥3. Data were collected using REDCap. After each round, thematic analysis guided document revisions and anonymized feedback. Results Ten experts from four countries completed the study. Round 1 (Table Tool): median ratings were all 3; consensus was achieved for 3/5 questions. Round 2: full consensus was achieved. Round 3 (Pictorial Tool): median ratings were ≥3 for 10/11 questions; consensus was achieved for 4/11 questions. Round 4: full consensus was achieved. Conclusions The content validity for the Table and Pictorial Tools was established by modified Delphi consensus. These tools represent a comprehensive selection of goals across all ICF components. Clinical Relevance These novel tools have the potential to facilitate collaborative goal setting between families and clinicians and aid clinical education. A goal-setting framework specific to orthotic management may improve outcomes within the context of family-centered care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.163
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJPO Journal of Prosthetics and OrthoticsSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207