The reliability of the time to execute various forms of the Finger-to-Nose Test in healthy subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to establish reliability estimates of different versions of the Finger-to-Nose test (FNT) using the generalisability theory. Generalizability theory was used to estimate the relative contribution of trials and occasions to the total measurement error and to generate reliability coefficients. Forty-two healthy adults (aged 20-63 yrs old) free of arm pain or other pathology participated. Participants performed 10 versions of the FNT during two evaluation sessions separated by a 24-hour interval. The time (s) to perform five trials of each version was recorded. The mean reliability coefficient for the one-occasion/one-trial testing situation among the test versions was 0.79 (range = 0.77-0.82). For all versions, the principal source of variance of the test performances came from the participants; minimally important sources of measurement error were also associated with occasion and the interaction effects between participants and occasion. Number of trials was not found to be an important source of error. The 10 versions of the FNT under investigation provide reliable measures of upper limb coordination among healthy adults when assessed by the one evaluator generalised across two days. These results are important to the development of norms for this measure.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".