Does parent report measure performance? A study of the construct validity of the Functional Mobility Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Parental report is often relied on to measure performance of activities in children with cerebral palsy (CP). This study examined whether the Functional Mobility Scale (FMS) accurately reflects performance of mobility in children with CP. METHOD: Eighteen children with spastic CP (11 males, seven females; mean age 12 y 8 mo, SD 2 y 8 mo, range 8-17 y) were recruited from a special development school. Children were in Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels II (n=5), III (n=4), or IV (n=9), and had quadriplegia (n=9), diplegia (n=7), or hemiplegia (n=2). The children's mobility was observed directly around and outside the home and at school and their mobility methods were recorded. The parent's FMS rating was obtained on the telephone by a physiotherapist. Agreement between direct observation and the FMS rating was examined using quadratic weighted kappa (kappa) statistics. RESULTS: Agreement between direct observation and the FMS was as follows: FMS 5m kappa=0.71, 45%; FMS 50m kappa=0.76, 94%; FMS 500m kappa=0.74, 95%. Differences in the range and number of mobility methods were observed by GMFCS level across environmental settings. INTERPRETATION: Substantial agreement was found between FMS ratings and direct observation, particularly over longer distances, providing evidence of the validity of the FMS as a measure of performance in children with CP.
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 | 0.039 | 0.168 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".