“My child is completely underestimated”: Canadian parents’ perspectives on implementing an accessible language comprehension assessment for non-speaking children with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable assessment of language comprehension is difficult for children with significant speech and motor limitations. The Computer-Based instrument for Low motor Language Testing (C-BiLLT) was designed for children with cerebral palsy (CP) and speech and motor limitations. A Canadian English version (C-BiLLT-CAN) has been validated. However, early investigation identified feasibility challenges necessitating further exploration. This study aimed to understand parents’ perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing the C-BiLLT-CAN in the Canadian clinical context. Seven focus groups were conducted synchronously online with 16 parents from five Canadian provinces/territories. Transcripts were analyzed using semi-deductive thematic analysis, framing results within the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Parents unanimously expressed interest in making the C-BiLLT-CAN clinically available. Facilitators and barriers were discussed under five themes. Key facilitators included the unique design, standardized nature, and potential flexibility of the C-BiLLT-CAN. Barriers involved the inability to accommodate all children, the potential for unintended assessment impacts, and clinics’ readiness and willingness to prioritize implementation. This study contributes new knowledge surrounding the assessment needs of parents of children with CP and speech and motor limitations. Alongside findings from a parallel clinician study, results will inform adaptations to the C-BiLLT-CAN to facilitate implementation. Parents showed interest in having the Canadian English Computer-Based Instrument for low-motor Language Testing (C-BiLLT-CAN) made available to their children Facilitators included the unique, standard, and flexible design of the C-BiLLT-CAN Barriers included doubts about accommodating all children and unintended impacts of assessment Findings will inform an adapted C-BiLLT-CAN to facilitate implementation in Canada
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 | 0.015 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".