Reliability of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M) in high-functioning school-aged children and adolescents who have an acquired brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To examine inter-rater, intra-rater and test-re-test reliability of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M) and compare reliability in live vs videotape rating contexts for children with acquired brain injury (ABI). RESEARCH DESIGN: Repeated measures design. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Seven physiotherapists (PTs) were trained as assessors. The primary assessor administered and scored baseline CB&M while the second assessor observed and scored independently (inter-rater reliability). Re-assessment occurred 3-10 days later by primary assessor (test-re-test reliability). Assessments were videotaped. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: There were 32 participants with ABI (mean age = 14 years 1 month (SD = 2 years 1 month)). Baseline mean scores were 67.4% (18.2) and 66.7% (18.3) for primary and second assessor, respectively. Primary assessors' re-test mean score was 69.3%. Inter-rater reliability ICC was 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.87-0.97). Test-re-test ICC was 0.90 (95%CI = 0.81-0.95) and Bland-Altman plot indicated greatest test-re-test differences for mid-range CB&M scores. Minimum detectable change (MDC₉₀) was 13.5% points. CONCLUSIONS: The CB&M showed excellent reliability in youth. Reliability was comparable for live and videotape rating approaches, meaning that the easier and less expensive live-rating can be recommended. Future work should focus on evaluation of responsiveness to change in rehabilitation centre and community intervention contexts.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".