Intra-Rater and Inter-Rater Reliability of the Balance Error Scoring System in Pre-Adolescent School Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to test the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the University of North Carolina's Balance Error Scoring System in 9- and 10-year-old children. Additionally, a modified version of the Balance Error Scoring System was tested to determine if it was more sensitive in this population (“raw scores”). Forty-six normally developing fourth-grade students underwent balance testing. Twelve trials measured static and dynamic balance. Four adult raters scored the balance tests to yield Cronbach's alpha scores of reliability. Intra-rater University of North Carolina Balance Error Scoring System α varied from .73 to .94 and .94 to .99 when using the raw scores. The inter-rater University of North Carolina Balance Error Scoring System α of the four raters ranged from .77 to .95 and from .88 to .98 when using the raw scores. The University of North Carolina Balance Error Scoring System shows high reliability when used with fourth-grade elementary school children; however, raw scores may show greater reliability in a population of children.
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 | 0.002 | 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".