Factor Structure of the Bulgarian Version of FOCUS on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to present the Factor structure of the Bulgarian version of FOCUS on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six. The instrument is based on the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health – Children and Youth (ICF-CY), and it aims at tracing the effect of therapy on the child’s communication and participation in the real world. Our research is focused on the factor structure and reliability of the Parent’s form. The participants formed two samples, the main one consisting of 272 (mostly preschool children), males and females. The age of the subjects varied between 2.17 and 7.25 years, with a mean age of M = 4.91 years and SD = 1.10. The latent structure of the questionnaire was examined in five phases – 1-test of the assumption of one-dimensionality; 2-exploratory factor analysis was applied to establish the factor model, based on data from an empirical study; 3-three possible factor models with a fixed number of factors were analyzed; 4-the factor models were compared through confirmatory factor analysis. The aim of the analyses was to select the most appropriate final model for the Bulgarian version of the questionnaire. The reliability analysis of the scales in the two-factor model was conducted through testing their internal consistency. The two-factor model of the FOCUS questionnaire in Bulgarian shows a good orientation towards two specific functions – ‘capacity for communication’, and ‘performance’ or ‘communicative performance’. Due to its stable measurements related to functioning, this tool could be effectively used to practically assess the effect of therapy on children with development disorders.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".