Content validation of an activity-based therapy tracking tool in a community setting for people living with spinal cord injury or disease using cognitive debriefing interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Activity-based therapy (ABT) has shown promise as a viable therapeutic intervention to promote neurorecovery in people with spinal cord injury/disease (SCI/D). Tools that track the details of ABT sessions may facilitate the collection of data needed to inform best practice guidelines for ABT. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the content validity of a prototype ABT tracking tool. METHODS: Nine clinicians and five individuals with SCI/D from three community-based ABT clinics in Canada used the prototype tracking tool over three ABT sessions and then participated in individual cognitive debriefing interviews. The interview guide was developed based on recommendations by Brod and colleagues for establishing content validity (i.e., appropriate, comprehensive, comprehensibility). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using deductive followed by inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Overall, the ABT tracking tool was found to have good content validity. Identified categories included: (1) Content validity of the ABT tracking tool. Participants found the tool to be comprehensive and appropriate for all levels and severities of injury. Recommendations to improve the tool included adding a comment section and additional parameters to each activity. (2) Facilitators of tool use, dissemination and implementation. Using the tool during rest breaks or after the session were suggested to maximize therapy time. Providing the tool as an app and offering education and training on use of the tool were highly recommended. Advertising through community clinics and social media may facilitate dissemination of the tool. (3) Barriers of tool use, dissemination and implementation. The paper format of the tool, added workload, learning curve and challenge to adopt a new documentation system were considered barriers to tool use. CONCLUSIONS: The prototype ABT tracking tool was validated for content using cognitive debriefing interviews. Recommendations will be used to improve the tool and assist in dissemination and implementation efforts.
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 | 0.099 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".