MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414348050 · doi:10.1097/iyc.0000000000000313

Content Validity of the Assessment, Evaluation, And Programming System (AEPS) for Infants And Children 3rd Edition in Spain

2025· article· en· W4414348050 on OpenAlex
Margarita Cañadas, Jennifer Grisham, Rómulo Jacobo González-García, Gabriel Martínez‐Rico

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfants & Young Children · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth Education and Validation
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContent validityTest (biology)Content (measure theory)Test validityIndex (typography)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the content validity of the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS) for Infants and Children-Third Edition (AEPS-3) in Spain. After being translated into Spanish, a total of 16 experts from various disciplines validated the content of the AEPS-3 test by reviewing items in their respective areas of expertise. The experts reviewed the AEPS-3 items and then completed a survey questionnaire that addressed (a) functionality of the item, (b) teachability of the item, (c) item clarity, and (d) criterion clarity. Data were analyzed using the Content Validity Index (CVI). Results indicated excellent agreement on the validity of the items. Test items were retained, modified, and/or removed based on the results.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it