Development and initial psychometric evaluation of an item bank created to measure upper extremity function in persons with stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To create and illustrate the development of a method to parsimoniously and hierarchically assess upper extremity function in persons after stroke. DESIGN: Data were analyzed using Rasch analysis. SETTING: Re-analysis of data from 8 studies involving persons after stroke. SUBJECTS: Over 4000 patients with stroke who participated in various studies in Montreal and elsewhere in Canada. METHODS: Data comprised 17 tests or indices of upper extremity function and health-related quality of life, for a total of 99 items related to upper extremity function. Tests and indices included, among others, the Box and Block Test, the Nine-Hole Peg Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Data were collected at various times post-stroke from 3 days to 1 year. RESULTS: Once the data fit the model, a bank of items measuring upper extremity function with persons and items organized hierarchically by difficulty and ability in log units was produced. CONCLUSION: This bank forms the basis for eventual computer adaptive testing. The calibration of the items should be tested further psychometrically, as should the interpretation of the metric arising from using the item calibration to measure the upper extremity of individuals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".