Reliability and validity of a measure of service providers' perceptions of child and parent engagement in pediatric rehabilitation therapy sessions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in client engagement in pediatric rehabilitation. This article investigated the psychometric properties of a measure of service providers' perceptions of the affective, cognitive and behavioural engagement of both children with disabilities and their parents in pediatric rehabilitation therapy sessions. METHODS: Test-retest reliability of the Pediatric Rehabilitation Intervention Measure of Engagement-Service Provider version (PRIME-SP) was examined using engagement ratings made by 60 service providers for 77 children and 73 parents. Construct validity was examined using the known-group validity technique, utilizing service providers' ratings of the engagement of parents and their children attending the same session with the service provider. We hypothesized that there would be significantly different, yet moderately correlated engagement ratings for children and their parents. RESULTS: There was evidence of moderate test-retest reliability for the child ratings, indicative of dynamicity across occasions, but also a degree of consistency, as aligned with our expectations. Service providers' ratings of parent and child engagement were not significantly correlated and paired t-tests indicated significantly higher engagement scores for parents than children. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides preliminary evidence to support the reliability and validity of the PRIME-SP as a tool for service providers to document, reflect on and monitor child and/or parent engagement.
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 | 0.017 | 0.049 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".