Reliability of the Manual Ability Classification System for children with cerebral palsy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The aim of this study was to determine the reliability of family and professional assessment of manual ability using the Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) for children with cerebral palsy (CP) in the UK. Families who were taking part in a study measuring the activities and participation of children with CP were invited to classify their child's manual ability using the MACS. Postal surveys were conducted with the families and health professionals nominated by the families. Perfect agreement was assessed as a percentage; chance‐corrected agreement was measured using Cohen's kappa (κ), and reliability was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Families of 91/128 (71%) children responded to the survey (53 males, 38 females; mean age 9y 11mo [SD 1y 11mo], range 6–12y) out of whom 88 indicated a single MACS level. Seventy‐two children (82%) were classified with spastic C P, 12 (14%) with dyskinesia, two (2%) with ataxia, and two (2%) were not classified. There were 21, 27, 11, 10, and 19 children who were classified by their families in Gross Motor Function Classification System Levels I to V respectively; 14, 30, 18, 13, and 13 children classified by their families in MACS levels I to V. The survey of health professionals generated 60/71 (85%) responses from physiotherapists, 55/58 (93%) responses from paediatricians, and 21/24 (88%) responses from occupational therapists. There was perfect agreement between families and professionals for more than 50% of children; the indices of chance‐corrected agreement ranged from κ=0.3 to 0.5, and the reliability coefficients ranged from ICC 0.7 to 0.9. Indices of agreement and reliability between families and professionals were equivalent to those between different professionals. The MACS, therefore, offers a valid and reliable method for communicating about the manual ability of children with C P. Families and professionals may not always agree precisely on a MACS level, particularly if children's performance of manual tasks varies in different environments.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».