The Home-Based Experiences of Palliative and Hospice Care for Children and Caregivers (EXPERIENCE) Measure: Evaluation of Psychometric Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Home-based pediatric palliative and hospice care (PPHC) supports the hundreds of thousands of children with serious illness and complex care needs and their families in the home setting. Considerable variation, however, exists in the provision and quality of home-based PPHC in the U.S. Ensuring equitable, high-quality home-based PPHC for all children requires the evaluation of families' care experiences and assessment of whether these experiences are aligned with their needs and priorities. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the previously developed 23-item home-based PPHC EXPERIENCE Measure for use with families of children receiving home-based PPHC in the United States. METHODS: Participants included families recruited from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Courageous Parents Network, and several other hospital- and community-based PPHC programs across the U.S. who provide home-based PPHC services. Participants completed the EXPERIENCE Measure at baseline and again at retest. We evaluated the factor structure of the EXPERIENCE Measure, as well as evidence regarding score reliability and validity. RESULTS: Eighty-two family participants completed the baseline and 53 completed the retest questionnaire from 15 states across the U.S. We found evidence for the score reliability and validity of a four-domain EXPERIENCE measure. CONCLUSION: The EXPERIENCE Measure is a tool with evidence for reliable and valid scores to evaluate family-reported home-based PPHC experiences at the time care is being received. Future work will evaluate the usability (i.e., acceptability, feasibility, and clinical actionability) of EXPERIENCE, including the sensitivity of the instrument to change over time and its impact on real-time clinical actions.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".