Interrater Reliability of the <i>Home Assessment of Person-Environment Interaction</i> (HoPE) <i>– Cognitive Version</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Most older people living with a neurocognitive disorder wish to age at home, and the person-environment interaction is a key factor in helping in-home functioning. The Home Assessment of Person-Environment Interaction (HoPE) – Cognitive Version is one of the few assessment tools targeting this interaction. This study tested its interrater reliability.Methods Based on Classical Test Theory, two independent trained occupational therapists simultaneously administered the HoPE-Cognitive Version to 30 dyads (older person and their caregiver), at home. Kappa coefficients, percentages of agreement and standard errors were calculated.Results Kappa coefficients ranged from −0.053 to 1.000 (kappamean=0.415; percentage of agreementrange=50%-100%); the majority (80%) ranged from Fair to Almost Perfect. For each of the three sections of the HoPE-Cognitive Version, the kappa coefficients for the global scores ranged as follows: Section 1: from 0.143 to 0.310 (mean = 0.235); Section 2: from 0.086 to 0.842 (mean = 0.413); Section 3: from −0.053 to 1.000 (mean = 0.532).Conclusion This study documents the interrater reliability of a promising instrument for understanding the person-environment interaction of community-dwelling seniors living with neurocognitive disorders. Several low coefficients demonstrate a high percentage of agreement, according to Feinstein and Cicchetti’s paradoxes. Continuing validation of the HoPE-Cognitive Version should further support its use.
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 | 0.043 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".