Physical activity measurement instruments for children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: this paper is a systematic review of physical activity measurement instruments for field-based studies involving children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: database searches using PubMed Central, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PEDro located 12 research papers, identifying seven instruments that met the inclusion criteria of (1) having been developed for children aged 0 to 18 years, (2) having been used to evaluate a physical activity dimension, and (3) having been used in a field-based study involving children with CP. The instruments reviewed were the Activities Scale for Kids - Performance version (ASKp), the Canada Fitness Survey, the Children's Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment/Preferences for Activities of Children (CAPE/PAC), the Compendium of Physical Activities, the Physical Activity Questionnaire - Adolescents (PAQ-A), StepWatch, and the Uptimer. Second-round searches yielded 11 more papers, providing reliability and validity evidence for the instruments. RESULTS: the instruments measure physical activity frequency, mode, domain, and duration. Although most instruments demonstrated adequate reliability and validity, only the ASKp and CAPE/PAC have established reliability and validity for children with physical disabilities; the Uptimer has established concurrent validity. No instrument measuring intensity in free-living has been validated or found reliable for children with CP. INTERPRETATION: the findings suggest that further studies are needed to examine the methodological properties of physical activity measurement in children with CP. Combining subjective and objective instruments is recommended to achieve better understanding of physical activity participation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".