Development and validity of the early clinical assessment of balance for young children with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Validity of the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance (ECAB), to monitor postural stability in children with cerebral palsy (CP), was evaluated. METHODS: 410 children with CP, 1.5 to 5 years old, participated. Physical therapists scored children on the Movement Assessment of Infants Automatic Reactions section and Pediatric Balance Scale. Through consensus, researchers selected items from both measures to create the ECAB. Content and construct validity were examined through item correlations, comparison of ECAB scores among motor ability, age and gender groups and correlations with the Gross Motor Function Measure 66 basal and ceiling (GMFM-66-B&C). RESULTS: Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92). ECAB differed significantly among motor ability, children <31 months old scored lower than older children, but there was no difference between boys and girls. ECAB and GMFM-66-B&C scores correlated strongly (r = 0.97). CONCLUSION: Validity of the ECAB was supported. Reliability and responsiveness need study.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".