Family centered goalsetting and evaluation: Using standardized and individualized instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Exploring how function and activities in individualized and standardized measures are related to family-selected goals, and compare change scores between the instruments. Design and Methods: A quantitative study of individualized and standardized instruments. Materials: Thirteen children with CP, mean age two years eight months participating in family-centered rehabilitation program. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) and Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66). Result: Parents identified 53 problems in COPM and 74 GAS-goals mainly in the categories personal care, mobility and play. Fourty-five percent of family-selected GAS-goals corresponded with activityproblems in COPM and skills in PEDI, while 26 percent of goals corresponded with function in GMFM-66. Individualized and standardized measures identified clinical change (p>.002), but did not correlate. Correlation between frequency of attained goals and improved scores varied in the individual child. Conclusion: COPM and PEDI are to a larger degree than GMFM reflected in family-selected goals. COPM may ensure familycentered practice, by facilitating the familys identification of activityproblems. PEDI and GMFM secure opportunities for standardized evaluation over time. All measures were sensitive to change, and low correlations indicate that they incorporate different aspects of motor function.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".