Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The present study evaluated the concurrent validity of the NK hand dexterity test (NKHDT) by use of three separate analyses: (1) the correlation between the NKHDT and a criterion comparator (Jebson's Hand Function Test (JHFT)); (2) the correlation between both dexterity tests and a patient-rated function questionnaire; and (3) the ability of subscales to differentiate between subjects with and without upper extremity pathology. METHOD: The study population included 40 individuals with a variety of musculoskeletal problems affecting the upper extremity and 10 individuals without any history of upper extremity problems. Both dexterity tests were administered on a single occasion according to a standard protocol. Subjects also completed a rating scale which evaluated self-care, household work, work and recreation on an 0-10-point scale. RESULTS: The validity of the NKHDT was supported in all three analyses because: (1) the correlation between the NKHDT and JHFT subtests was moderate to strong (Pearson's r = 0.47-0.87) and stronger when the objects were more similar in size; (2) both scales correlated to a similar extent with patient-rated function (Pearson's r = 0.34-0.67); and (3) all subscales were statistically different between subjects with and without upper extremity pathology (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The present study supports the use of the NKHDT as a measure of hand dexterity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".