Listening to Parents’ Concerns: Three Case Examples of Infants with Developmental Motor Delays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: The primary purpose of this clinical report was to compare parents’ concerns about their infants’ suspected motor delays with scores on the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT) and the Bayley-II Motor Scale. The second purpose was to determine whether there was agreement in categorizing the delays on the 2 tests. Summary of Key Points: Three female infants with parent-identified concerns of motor delay were assessed on the HINT and Bayley-II Motor Scale. All showed significant delays, corroborating parental concerns. On the HINT, all scored >2 SD above the mean, being categorized as significantly delayed. On the Bayley-II Motor Scale, all demonstrated significantly delayed motor performance, ie, >2 SD below the mean. Recommendations for Clinical Practice: Pediatric physical therapists should listen to parents’ concerns about their infants with suspected motor delays and provide assessments to address these concerns. When appropriate, these infants should be referred for early intervention services. This case report highlights parents’ identification of their infants’ developmental delay. That delay was validated when the infants were examined using the HINT and the Bayley Test of Infant Motor Development. The author emphasizes the need for therapists to attend to parents’ concerns about their infants’ development.
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) | 0.000 | 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".