Content validity of the expanded and revised Gross Motor Function Classification System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to validate the expanded and revised Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS-E&R) for children and youth with cerebral palsy using group consensus methods. Eighteen physical therapists participated in a nominal group technique to evaluate the draft version of a 12- to 18-year age band. Subsequently, 30 health professionals from seven countries participated in a Delphi survey to evaluate the revised 12- to 18-year and 6- to 12-year age bands. Consensus was defined as agreement with a question by at least 80% of participants. After round 3 of the Delphi survey, consensus was achieved for the clarity and accuracy of the descriptions for each level and the distinctions between levels for both the 12- to 18-year and 6- to 12-year age bands. Participants also agreed that the distinction between capability and performance and the concept that environmental and personal factors influence methods of mobility were useful for classification of gross motor function. The results provide evidence of content validity of the GMFCS-E&R. The GMFCS-E&R has utility for communication, clinical decision making, databases, registries, and clinical research.
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 | 0.087 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".