Further Evaluation of the Scoring, Reliability, and Validity of the Hypertonia Assessment Tool (HAT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the impact of videotape analysis on scoring of the Hypertonia Assessment Tool (HAT) that discriminates between hypertonia subtypes. The HAT was administered to 28 children with cerebral palsy (mean age 9 years, range 4-17 years, 61% male). HAT examinations were videotaped; scores were assigned before and after videotape review. Neurological examination provided the gold standard diagnosis. Interrater reliability, criterion validity and individual item validation were assessed using prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). Videotape review did not significantly change the HAT item scores or diagnoses. Item validation eliminated 1 dystonia item. Interrater reliability was moderate for dystonia (PABAK = 0.43) and excellent for spasticity and rigidity (PABAK = 0.86-1.0). Criterion validity was substantial for spasticity (PABAK = 0.71), moderate for dystonia (PABAK = 0.43-0.57) and excellent for the absence of rigidity (PABAK = 1.0). The HAT can be administered without videotape review. Dystonia item 1 did not change the HAT hypertonia diagnosis and will be removed from the HAT.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".