Validity of the Fine Motor Area of the 12-Month Ages and Stages Questionnaire in Infants Following Major Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ) are parent-report screening tools to identify infants at risk of developmental difficulties. The purpose of this study was to examine validity and internal reliability of the fine motor developmental area of the ASQ, 2nd edition (ASQ2-FM) for screening 12-month-old infants following major surgery. The ASQ2-FM was completed by caregivers of 74 infants who had cardiac surgery in the first 90 days of life, 104 infants who had noncardiac surgery in the first 90 days of life, and a control group of 154 infants. The Rasch item response analysis revealed that the ASQ2-FM had poor ability to discriminate among levels of fine motor ability. Sensitivity was poor (20%) and specificity was good (98%) when compared with the scores for the fine motor subscale of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development. The ASQ2-FM under-identified infants at risk for fine motor delay; internal reliability and construct validity do not support use as a screening tool of fine motor development of infants aged 12 months who have undergone major surgery.
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 | 0.000 | 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".