Screening for motor deficits using the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) in children with language impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) motor and self-care domains with the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-second edition (PDMS-2) gross motor and fine motor sub-scales. METHODS: Forty children (35-62 months) with primary language impairment (PLI) were recruited. The PEDI was completed at admission and the PDMS-2 was administered within 1 month by an OT, who was unaware of the PEDI results. RESULTS: Correlation between PEDI mobility and PDMS-2 gross motor domains was r = 0.23 (p = 0.15) and between PEDI self-care and PDMS-2 fine motor domains was r = 0.12 (p = 0.47). Associations between PEDI and PDMS-2 scores for age, gender and severity of language impairment sub-groups were poor-to-moderate. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate the PEDI is not sufficiently accurate to screen for motor deficits in children with PLI. More sensitive measures of motor performance are needed to detect subtle motor deficits in children with PLI.
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) | 0.000 | 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".