Standardized Finger-Nose Test Validity for Coordination Assessment in an Ataxic Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of coordination with the Finger-Nose Test is an essential part of the neurological examination. This study explored the convergent and discriminant construct validity of the Standardized Finger-Nose Test (SFNT) in a neuromuscular disorder with ataxic features. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was carried out with 24 participants with recessive spastic ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay. Convergent construct validity was tested by correlating the SFNT with other upper extremity function tests, a functional independence measure and social participation. Upper extremity function tests included gross and fine dexterity (Box and Block Test and Purdue Pegboard), upper extremity strength (dynamometry) and global upper extremity performance (TEMPA). The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and the Assessment of Life Habits scale (LIFE-H) measured functional independence and social participation respectively. Discriminant construct validity was explored by comparing performance on the SFNT between two age groups (< 40 years and > or = 40 years). RESULTS: Convergent validity of the SFNT was demonstrated by moderate to strong correlations with gross and fine finger dexterity (r = 0.82-0.84), global upper extremity performance (0.74-0.79), functional independence (r = 0.74) and social participation (r = 0.78). Upper extremity coordination of the older group was significantly lower than in the younger group, suggesting the ability of the SFNT to discriminate between different levels of function. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the convergent and discriminant construct validity of the SFNT in a neuromuscular disorder with ataxic features.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".