Rater reliability of the adapted scoring criteria of the Minnesota Handwriting Assessment for children with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Current handwriting assessment tools are standardised mostly on typically developing students. This study estimated the intrarater and interrater reliabilities of the adapted scoring criteria, titled the Minnesota Handwriting Assessment-Cerebral Palsy (MHA-CP), for evaluating the effectiveness of handwriting interventions for children with cerebral palsy. METHODS: We scored two batches of 20 random samples each from 80 handwriting samples produced by 30 children with cerebral palsy using the MHA-CP to estimate the intrarater and interrater reliabilities, respectively. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients exceeded 0.95 for both intrarater and interrater reliabilities for all quality subscales of the MHA-CP. CONCLUSIONS: The MHA-CP is shown to be a reliable measure of the manuscript handwriting performance of children with cerebral palsy who are in Grades 1 and 2. Further empirical testing is recommended to confirm its validity as an outcome measure for this population.
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 | 0.001 | 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".