Toronto Rehabilitation Institute–Hand Function Test: Assessment of Gross Motor Function in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the interrater reliability, construct validity, and sensitivity of Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-Hand Function Test (TRI-HFT), within an interventional randomized control trial. METHOD: Twenty-one participants with subacute C4 to C7 spinal cord injury (SCI) were recruited. Based on randomization, participants were allocated to either the functional electrical stimulation therapy group or the conventional occupational therapy group. Baseline and follow-up assessments of participants were videotaped. For testing interrater reliability, videotaped images were transferred to DVDs that were later observed by 2 observers. Construct validity was determined by comparing total scores on TRI-HFT to self-care subscore components of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) and FIM. To establish sensitivity of TRI-HFT, we compared pre- and posttreatment scores on all 3 measures (ie, TRI-HFT, FIM, and SCIM). RESULTS: TRI-HFT was found to have high interrater reliability with an intercorrelation coefficient (ICC) of 0.98. Moderate to strong correlations were found between TRI-HFT total scores and self-care components of FIM and SCIM for both hands individually post therapy. Due to a floor effect of the FIM and SCIM, there was weak correlation between pretherapy scores of the said measures and TRI-HFT. TRI-HFT was found to be highly sensitive in determining difference in function pre and post therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the TRI-HFT is a reliable and sensitive measure to assess unilateral hand gross motor function in persons with tetraplegia, with moderate to strong construct validity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".