Responsiveness of the Seated Postural Control Measure and the Level of Sitting Scale in children with neuromotor disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Responsiveness of the Seated Postural Control Measure (SPCM) and the Level of Sitting Scale (LSS) was explored for children with neuromotor disorders. Total change scores for alignment (SPCM-A), function (SPCM-F) and sitting ability (LSS) were compared with a criterion change measure, the Global Change Scale (GCS). The a priori hypotheses predicted moderate correlations (r>0.40). METHOD: Both SPCM and LSS were administered twice, 6 months apart. Parents and two therapists rated changes in alignment and function, and indicated importance of those changes on the GCS. Participants (n=114) were divided into two groups: those whose posture was expected to change, (with a range of diagnoses) and those who were expected to remain stable (with a diagnosis of cerebral palsy). Ages ranged from 1 to 18 years. RESULTS: Fair-to-moderate significant correlations (p ≤0.01) were found between SPCM-F and LSS change scores and parents' and therapists' rating of change and importance of change on the GCS. Correlations for SPCM-A change scores were insignificant. The standardised response mean values for SPCM-F and LSS confirmed a minimal clinically important difference. CONCLUSIONS: SPCM-F shows promise as a responsive outcome measure, however; SPCM-A requires further work. LSS may be useful for evaluative purposes, in addition to its role as a classification index.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.005 |
| 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".