Content validity of the Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB‐v6) for use with adults with acquired brain injury (ABI): An international Delphi study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Occupational therapists are responsible for assessing adult handwriting following stroke and other acquired brain injuries. The Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB) was developed for use as a diagnostic assessment tool and outcome measure. The current study aimed to investigate the content validity of version six of the Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB-v6). METHODS: A three round, online-Delphi study was conducted with an international group of expert clinicians and academics experienced in adult handwriting assessment and/or retraining. In round one, participants rated the importance of HAB-v6 domains and the six subtests and recommended modifications to administration and/or scoring procedures. In rounds two and three, participants were re-presented with several HAB-v6 domains where consensus was not reached and rated the importance of suggested modifications from round one. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis. CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Consumers and community members were not involved in this study. RESULTS: Fifteen participants from the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, and Australia completed round one of the Delphi, 11 participants completed round two, and 15 participants completed round three. In round one, high consensus (>70% participant agreement) was achieved regarding the importance of 5/6 subtests of the HAB-v6; suggestions were made to modify three subtests and add new subtests. In round two, high consensus (>70% agreement) was achieved on three proposed revisions: adding two subtests and modifying instructions for the copying subtest. In round three, low consensus regarding inclusion of the dots drawing subtest remained. CONCLUSION: Based on the Delphi process, the content of five of six subtests of the HAB-v6 are valid for use by occupational therapists and others to measure adult handwriting performance, with the exception of the dots subtest, where consensus was not reached.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".