Reliability and validity of the acquired brain injury challenge assessment (ABI-CA) in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: The Acquired Brain Injury Challenge Assessment (ABI-CA) was created to fill a measurement gap and evaluate deficits in advanced motor skills in children with acquired brain injury (ABI). Study objectives were to refine ABI-CA response options and evaluate (i) inter-/intra-rater reliability, (ii) concurrent validity and difficulty level in relation to the Community Balance & Mobility Scale (CB&M) and (iii) administration efficiency of the refined ABI-CA. RESEARCH DESIGN: Measurement study. METHODS: Phase I involved ABI-CA revisions. Phase 2 consisted of live-/video-scoring of the ABI-CA with 15 typically-developing (TD) children and 15 with ABI (7-17 years) to assess reliability/validity. RESULTS: The revised 20-item ABI-CA displayed excellent reliability for the entire sample (ICCs > 0.90; 95% CI = 0.92-1.00; SEM ≤ 3.60) and within ABI and TD sub-groups. The ABI-CA and CB&M correlated strongly (r = 0.75, p < 0.0001). The ABI-CA mean score (/100) was 11.3 points lower (p < 0.0001) than the CB&M's mean score (/100). CONCLUSION: The ABI-CA demonstrated excellent reliability and initial evidence of validity. ABI-CA scores were lower overall than the CB&M, indicating the ABI-CA may have greater capacity to evaluate improvements in advanced motor skills in children with ABI. Multi-centre research is needed to confirm the ABI-CA's test-retest reliability and, assuming acceptability, assess responsiveness to change.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".