MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035885315 · doi:10.1089/neu.2010.1504

The Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength Sensibility and Prehension: Reliability and Validity

2011· article· en· W2035885315 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMuscular Dystrophy CanadaToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersToronto Rehabilitation InstituteOntario Neurotrauma FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRick Hansen FoundationChristopher and Dana Reeve Foundation
KeywordsTetraplegiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpinal cord injuryConstruct validityConcurrent validityMedicineReliability (semiconductor)Physical therapyValidityPsychologySpinal cordPsychometricsClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the advent of new interventions targeted at both acute and chronic spinal cord injury (SCI), it is critical that techniques and protocols are developed that reliably evaluate changes in upper limb impairment/function. The Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength Sensibility and Prehension (GRASSP) protocol, which includes five subtests, is a quantitative clinical upper limb impairment measure designed for use in acute and chronic cervical SCI. The objectives of this study were to: (1) establish the inter-rater and test-retest reliability, and (2) establish the construct and concurrent validity with the International Standards of Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI), Spinal Cord Independence Measure II (SCIM), and the Capabilities of Upper Extremity Questionnaire (CUE). The study protocol included repeated administration of the GRASSP to a cross-section of individuals with tetraplegia who were neurologically stable (n=72). ISNCSCI, CUE, and SCIM assessments were also administered. Two assessors examined the individuals over a 7-day period. Reliability was tested with intra-class correlation coefficients; construct validity was established with agreement/discordance analysis between the GRASSP and ISNCSCI sensory and motor items; and concurrent validity was tested with Spearman correlation coefficients. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability for all subtests within the GRASSP were above the hypothesized value of 0.80 (0.84-0.96 and 0.86-0.98, respectively). The GRASSP is about 50% more sensitive (construct validity) than the ISNCSCI when defining sensory and motor integrity of the upper limb; the subtests showed concurrence with the SCIM, SCIM self-care subscale, and CUE. The strongest concurrence to impairment was with self-perception of function (CUE) (0.57-0.83, p<0.0001). The GRASSP was found to demonstrate reliability, construct validity, and concurrent validity for use as a standardized upper limb impairment measure for individuals with tetraplegia.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.228
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it