Validation of the relation between the type and amount of seating support provided and Level of Sitting Scale (LSS) scores for children with neuromotor disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the construct validity of the Level of Sitting Scale (LSS) by examining the relationship between LSS scores and the type and amount of seating supports. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the data for 114 children ≤18 years, with neuromotor disorders who participated in a responsiveness study of the Seated Postural Control Measure. RESULTS: A significant inverse relationship (Spearman rho = -0.42, p < 0.05) was found between LSS scores and amount of seating support provided. Statistically significant differences were also revealed between LSS levels of sitting ability (p < 0.004) and pelvic, thigh, trunk and head seating components and type of seating system, using Kruskal-Wallis test. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence of construct validity for the LSS in use as a discriminative measure of sitting ability in children with neuromotor disorders. Further validation is justified. Clinically intuitive associations between sitting ability and seating interventions were confirmed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".