New directions in measuring family-centred service: the updated measure of processes of care (MPOC 2.0)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop an updated Measure of Processes of Care assessing parent/caregiver perceptions of the family-centredness of service providers' behaviour. METHOD: Researchers and parent partners conducted a two-phase project involving (i) tool development, and (ii) field testing to determine psychometric properties. Sixty-five parents of children with disabilities participated in focus groups to discuss their wants and hopes for service delivery; six parents reviewed the measure for comprehensibility and clarity; and 10 parents and 10 service providers participated in a modified Delphi procedure to establish consensus about item wording. In the field testing phase, 58 parents were involved in the assessment of test-retest reliability, and 273 parents completed construct validity measures. MPOC 2.0 scales were determined through factor analysis. Internal consistency and construct validity hypotheses were examined. RESULTS: The resulting scales (Supportive and Collaborative Communication, Availability of Care, Family Well-being, and Coordinated Care) had high internal consistencies, good to excellent test-retest reliabilities, and moderate to strong correlations with construct validation measures. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to the original 30-year-old MPOC-20, the new measure highlights the importance of communication as a relational process involving reciprocal transactions between parents and service providers. It also highlights family well-being, service availability, and coordination of care.
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 | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".