LINK Virtual Forum on Authentic Assessment for Early Childhood Intervention: Interdisciplinary & International Consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The LINK Virtual Forum on Authentic Assessment for Early Childhood Intervention: Interdisciplinary & International Consensus was orchestrated through a series of virtual focus-groups during the pandemic in 2021-2022. This new strategy for conducting a more robust national/international consumer social validity study gathered practice-based evidence from the field using national and international expert panel focus groups and an expert panel forum to survey Authentic Assessment experts and users. Uniquely, these deliberations relied upon the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) among participants to reach consensus decisions and Qualtrics survey results. The decision-making process addressed types of assessment measures that address early childhood intervention purposes best, but also, what specific processes and procedures best engage parents, professionals, and young children in a developmentally-appropriate and ecological assessment using best practice competencies and standards in the field to fulfill diverse ECI purposes. The central organizing feature of the Focus Groups and the Forum was the use of seven disciplinary focus groups (n=56) with membership selected by a disciplinary chairperson and the authors consisting of the following interdisciplinary professional groups: Early Childhood Educators/Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Educators; Speech/Language Specialists; Physical Therapists, Occupational Therapists; Psychologists; University Faculty Representatives, and International Experts. We recruited a national and international representative sample of interdisciplinary participants (n=56) from the US, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Holland, China, Colombia, Korea, Taiwan, Uzbekistan, for two major LINK activities: (1) LINK Expert Panel Focus Groups (n=7); and (2) a cross-disciplinary LINK Expert Panel Forum. The process and outcome data on best practices in AA for ECI from the LINK Forum were based on the consensus of interdisciplinary and international experts in the ECI field. Keywords: authentic assessment; early childhood intervention; recommended practices; best practices; international; interdisciplinary
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 | 0.141 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.005 |
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".