Interrater Reliability of Early Intervention Providers Scoring the Alberta Infant Motor Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was designed to examine the interrater reliability of early intervention providers scoring of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and to examine whether training on the AIMS would improve their interrater reliability. METHODS: Eight early intervention providers were randomly assigned to two groups. Participants in Group 1 scored the AIMS on seven videotapes of infants prior to receiving training and after training on another set of seven videotapes of infants. Participants in Group 2 scored the AIMS on all 14 videotapes of the infants after receiving training. RESULTS: Overall interrater reliability before and after training was high with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.98 to 0.99. Detailed examination of the results showed that training improved the reliability of the supine subscale in a subgroup of infants between the ages of five and seven months. Training also had an effect on the classification of infants as normal or abnormal in their motor development based on their percentile rankings. CONCLUSION: The AIMS manual provides sufficient information to attain high interrater reliability without training, but revisions regarding scoring are strongly recommended.
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".