Community mobility assessment for adolescents with an acquired brain injury: Preliminary inter-rater reliability study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Community Mobility Assessment (CMA) is an observational assessment that evaluates safety of an adolescent with an acquired brain injury (ABI) during a community outing. It consists of a 3-point level of accomplishment scale for 40 functional items, divided into two components (physical and cognitive). The CMA identifies areas of strength and weakness and facilitates development of compensating strategies. This study was undertaken to determine how reliably therapists rate a client's performance using the CMA on a community outing. PARTICIPANTS: Eight adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 participated. All had an ABI and were involved in rehabilitation either as a day-patient or inpatient. METHODS: Each teen was independently evaluated by one expert rater and one of two student raters (A or B), using the CMA during a standard 2-h community outing. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics were computed for physical and cognitive component summary scores. Inter-rater reliability analyses used weighted Kappa statistics. A minimum Kappa score >0.70 was hypothesized a priori to indicate good reliability. RESULTS: The mean score for the physical component = 92% (min = 82%, max = 100%), and for the cognitive component = 77% (min = 58%, max = 97%). Minimum weighted Kappa scores for the two rater pairings were 0.80 for the physical component and 0.70 for the cognitive component. CONCLUSIONS: An acceptable Kappa score was reached for both components, indicating that with appropriate rater training, the CMA has good inter-rater reliability. Construct validity and responsiveness to change over a clinically meaningful follow-up period should now be evaluated.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".