Development of the Daily Activities of Infants Scale: a measure supporting early motor development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe the development and preliminary psychometric testing of the Daily Activities of Infants Scale (DAIS), a parent-completed measure of opportunities parents provide infants for development of postural control and movement. First we obtained 1300 photographs of typical activities from 17 families with infants aged 4 to 11 months. Through consensus we established nine dimensions of activities, graded across three levels of opportunity for development. Pilot testing supported content validity of the DAIS. Subsequently, 50 parents of infants born preterm aged 4 to 11 months participated in psychometric testing. There were 25 male and 25 female infant participants with a mean gestational age of 29.4 weeks (SD 3.6) and a mean birthweight of 1266 grams (SD 635). We found that completion of the DAIS over 1 day was representative of data collected over 3 sequential days. Older infants obtained significantly higher DAIS scores than younger infants, providing preliminary evidence for discriminant validity. The DAIS scores demonstrated a part-correlation of 0.20 (p<0.01) with scores on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale obtained concurrently, providing some evidence for convergent validity. The intraclass correlation coefficients reflecting interrater reliability and test-retest reliability of the total DAIS score were 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.86) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.60-0.87) respectively. The DAIS has sufficient reliability and validity for use in clinical practice and research.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".