Reliability and validity of short‐term performance tests for wheelchair‐using children and adolescents with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the test-retest reproducibility of the Muscle Power Sprint Test (MPST), the 10 × 5-m sprint test, and the arm-cranking Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP). A secondary objective was to assess the construct validity of the MPST. METHOD: Twenty-three participants with spastic CP (mean age 13 y 3 mo, range 7-18 y, SD 3.6 y; 18 males, five females, two classified as having spastic unilateral CP, 21 as having spastic bilateral CP) using a manual wheelchair for at least part of the day were recruited and tested in different rehabilitation settings in the Netherlands. Participants were classified as in Gross Motor Function Classification System Expanded and Revised (GMFCS-E&R) levels III and IV. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (range 0.93-0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.82-1.0) for all variables indicated highly acceptable reproducibility. Limits of agreement analysis revealed satisfactory levels of agreement. The MPST variables demonstrated very strong significant positive correlations for peak power and mean power from both tests (peak power: r=0.91, p<0.001; mean power: r=0.88, p<0.001). INTERPRETATION: The MPST, the 10 × 5-m sprint test, and the arm-cranking WAnT are reproducible tests for measuring anaerobic performance and agility in adolescents with spastic CP who self-propel a manual wheelchair. The MPST has been shown to be a valid test to measure anaerobic performance in this population.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".