New reference values for the Alberta Infant Motor Scale need to be established
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) is an infant developmental test, which can be used to evaluate motor performance from birth to independent walking. Between 1990 and 1992 Piper and Darrah determined reference values in a cohort in Canada. To our knowledge no study has been carried out to determine whether the Canadian data are representative for other countries. In the present study we aimed to establish whether the AIMS test needs new reference values for Dutch children. METHODS: Motor performance of 100 Dutch children, aged 0-12 months, was measured using the AIMS test. RESULTS: The mean percentile score of the Dutch children was 28.8 (+/-22.9, range 1-85). The percentile scores of the group were significantly lower than scores of the Canadian norm population (p < 0.001), whereby 75% of the Dutch children scored below the 50th percentile. These lower scores were not be explained by sex, racial differences or congenital disorders and were seen in all age groups. CONCLUSION: We conclude that new reference values on the AIMS test for the age group of 0-12 months need to be established for Dutch children. It is recommended that the need for new normative data is also determined in all other European countries.
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 | 0.017 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".