INTRA- AND INTER-RATER RELIABILITY OF THE ASSESSMENT OF CAPACITY FOR MYOELECTRIC CONTROL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the reliability of the Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control (ACMC) in children and adults with a myoelectric prosthetic hand. DESIGN: Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability estimated from reported assessments by 3 different raters. PATIENTS: A sample of convenience of 26 subjects (11 males, 15 females) with upper limb reduction deficiency or amputation and myoelectric prosthetic hands were video-taped during a regular clinical visit for ACMC. Participants' ages ranged from 2 to 40 years. METHODS: After instruction, 3 occupational therapists with no, 10 weeks' and 15 years' clinical experience of myoelectric prosthesis training and follow-up independently rated the 30 ACMC items for each patient. The ratings were repeated after 2-4 weeks. Inter- and intra-rater reliability in items was examined by using weighted kappa statistics and Rasch-measurement analyses. RESULTS: The mean intra-rater agreement in items was excellent (kappa 0.81) in the more experienced raters. Fit statistics showed too much variation in the least experienced rater, who also had only good (kappa 0.65) agreement in items. The stability of rater calibrations between first and second assessment showed that no rater varied beyond chance (>0.50 logit) in severity. The mean inter-rater agreement in items was fair; kappa 0.60, between the experienced raters and kappa 0.47 between raters with no and 10 weeks' experience. CONCLUSION: Overall, the agreement was higher in the more experienced raters, indicating that reliable measures of the ACMC require clinical experience from myoelectric prosthesis training.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".