Usage of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale Thai version by physical therapy students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this study was to compare the rated scores of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) between physical therapy students and a physical therapy lecturer. Fifty five physical therapy students were recruited. Physical therapy students watched a video cassette and assessed gross motor development of a normal infant using the developed AIMS Thai version. The assessments of gross motor development were performed at the 1st, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th and 14 th month. The results showed that scores from the students were not significantly different compared with the lecturer ‘s score at the 1st, 6th and 8 th month (p value=0.63, 0.19 and 0.14 respectively). In conclusion, the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) Thai version can be used correctly by physical therapy students and their rated score was as good as the lecturer’s at the 1st, 6th and 8th month. Moreover, the AIMS Thai version is appropriate for assessing infans’ gross motor development by physical therapy students. A well practice is needed before using the AIMS Thai version in clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".