Clinimetric Properties of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale in Infants Born Preterm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) is a standardized motor assessment for young infants. This study aimed to examine the reliability of the AIMS in a group of infants born at or before 29 weeks of gestation. Methods: Fifty-nine infants born preterm were recruited. Two experienced pediatric physical therapists participated in this reliability study. Infants were assessed at 4, 8, 12, and 18 months corrected age (CA). Results: Intrarater reliability was high (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ≥0.99). The ICC for interrater reliability varied from 0.85 to 0.97. The ICC was low at 4 and 18 months CA. Conclusions: The AIMS is reliable in evaluating motor development in infants born preterm. Clinicians should be cautious about using the AIMS in infants at very young ages and those approaching independent ambulation. Accurate placement of the window on a movement repertoire is crucial. Attention is required when using the AIMS in infants developing atypically. This study of the AIMS reveals that the scale is reliable in evaluating motor development in infants born preterm. The authors caution clinicians when using the scale for infants at very young ages and those close to attaining independent ambulation and emphasize accurate placement of the window on a movement repertoire.
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 | 0.011 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".