Concurrent and Divergent Validity of The Clientu2019S intervention Priorities (Cip)U00A9 Tool in a Sample of individuals With Traumatic Brain injury : Preliminary Findings On An innovative Canadian instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Clientu2019s Intervention Priorities (CIP)u00a9 is a tool for the assessment of self-perceived functioning in daily life situations and for determining intervention priorities. It is based on an anthropological model of human development and disability (Disability Creation Process-DCP). Conceived on principles of active participation, empowerment, and autonomy during neurorehabilitation, the CIP is a person-centred collaborative tool for setting rehabilitation goals with individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Objective: To investigate the concurrent and divergent validity of the CIP tool.Design: Cross-sectional descriptive study. Methods: Sixty-four individuals with TBI with a mean age of 39.6 (SD=14.1) years and 4.3 (SD=3.7) months post-injury were recruited at admission to the outpatient TBI rehabilitation program of an interdisciplinary neurorehabilitation centre in Montreal, Canada. The majority were men (57.8%), either single (43.8%) or married (42.2%), having sustained a moderate TBI (45.3%). Using the CIP tool, individuals were asked to judge their degree of functioning in 41 everyday/life situations corresponding to 12 categories (Daily Activities, 21 items: nutrition, fitness, personal care, communication, housing, mobility; Social Roles, 20 items: responsibilities, interpersonal relationships, community life, education, employment, recreation) reflecting the DCP model. A five-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1- u201cI do not do it because of my present condition u2013 somebody else does it for meu201d to 5- u201cI do it alone, without difficultyu201d was used. The CIP tool scores (Daily Activities and Social Roles subscales, and the total CIP total score) were calculated. The Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory-4 (MPAI-4) (indices of Ability, Adjustment, Participation, and the MPAI-4 total score, higher scores correspond to lower levels of functioning) was used as the criterion for convergent validity and a composite score of the MPAI-4 addressing associated conditions (i.e., alcohol and drug use, psychotic symptoms, and law violations) was used to estimate divergent validity. Results: There was a statistically significant strong negative (as expected) correlation between the total score of the CIP tool and the total score of the MPAI-4 (r = -.56, p < .01). Conversely, the CIP did not show statistically significant associations with a composite score of the MPAI-4 addressing associated conditions (r = -.14, p > .05). The CIP Daily Activities subscale and the Social Roles subscale showed medium to large negative associations with the three subscales of the MPAI-4 (ru2019s ranging from -.41 to -.55, p < .01).Conclusions: The CIP tool has strong concurrent and divergent validity in individuals with mild to severe TBI, as shown by its relationships to a widely accepted social participation outcome measure in brain injury. The CIP tool is a theoretically grounded tool with excellent psychometric properties to assist individuals with TBI and their rehabilitation professionals in the self-assessment of life habits and setting of common rehabilitation goals.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".