Reliability and Validity of the Youth and Young-Adult Participation and Environment Measure (Y-PEM): An Initial Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To examine psychometric properties and aspects of utility of the Youth and young-adult Participation and Environment Measure (Y-PEM).Methods Young people with and without physical disabilities (n = 113) aged 12 to 31 (x¯ = 23; SD = 4.3) completed an online survey containing the Y-PEM and QQ-10 questionnaire. To examine construct validity, differences in participation levels and environmental barriers/facilitators were examined between those with (n = 56) and without disabilities (n = 57) via t-test. Internal consistency was computed using Cronbach’s alpha. To examine test-retest reliability, a sub-sample of 70 participants completed the Y-PEM a second time, 2–4 weeks apart. The Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated.Results Descriptively, participants with disabilities had lower levels of frequency and involvement across all four settings: home, school/educational, community, workplace. Internal consistency were 0.71 and above (up to 0.82) across all scales with the exception of home (0.52) and workplace frequency (0.61). Test-retest reliability were 0.70 and above (up to 0.85) across all settings except for environmental supports at school (0.66) and workplace frequency (0.43). Y-PEM was perceived as a valuable tool with relatively low burden.Conclusions Initial psychometric properties are promising. Findings support Y-PEM’s use as a feasible self-reported questionnaire for individuals aged 12–30 years old.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".