Development of a Challenge Assessment Tool for High-Functioning Children With an Acquired Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a performance-based challenge assessment to evaluate gross motor abilities of high-functioning youth with an acquired brain injury (ABI). METHODS: Potential items were identified from the literature. A panel of 4 expert physical therapists selected items on the basis of 3 criteria: safety to test, feasibility to administer, and importance to perform. Item reduction was completed using ratings from a physical therapist web survey. The Acquired Brain Injury-Challenge Assessment (ABI-CA) was created and pilot tested with youth with an ABI. RESULTS: Seventy-eight items were identified and reduced to 47 items following expert panel discussion. Web-survey item reduction by 75 pediatric physical therapists yielded a 24-item ABI-CA that was administered to 6 youth with an ABI, aged 8 to 17 years. The ABI-CA mean score was 50.7/81.0 (SD = 17.4). CONCLUSION: The ABI-CA was feasible to administer and demonstrated gross motor activity challenges beyond the Gross Motor Function Measure. Response option refinement and measure validation are required prior to clinical/research use.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".