Development and evaluation of the Family Needs Questionnaire for Pediatric Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop the Family Needs Questionnaire-Pediatric Rehabilitation (FNQ-PR) version and evaluate the reliability and concurrent validity of this self-report measure for caregivers of children with disabilities who receive pediatric rehabilitation services. MATERIALS/METHODS: The 39-item FNQ-PR was developed through a modified Delphi Technique. For test-retest evaluation, parents completed the FNQ-PR twice through an online REDCap survey, 1-3 weeks apart. Concurrent validity data (parent-report Impact on Family Scale [IFS-15] and Measure of Processes of Care [MPOC-20]) were collected at baseline. Reliability analyses included ICCs (95%CI) and internal consistency evaluation. RESULTS: Twenty-five caregivers of children ages 2-18 years (mean age 12.2 years) with a disability completed the FNQ-PR at baseline, and 21 completed the retest. FNQ-PR total score demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.84); internal consistency was high. The FNQ-PR total score was strongly negatively associated with IFS-15 total score (r = -0.62) and showed fair to strong association with MPOC subscale scores (0.45 ≤ r ≤ 0.70). Participants did not identify issues with the online format or FNQ-PR item rating. CONCLUSIONS: The FNQ-PR demonstrated excellent overall reliability and strong evidence of validity. It fills a gap in clinical care of families of children with disabilities, providing a systematic way for families to identify the extent to which their needs are perceived to have been met. Clinicians can use this tool to target unmet needs that are most important to families. FNQ-PR use in future research will support exploration of the impact of specific child and family factors on family needs.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".