Development of the Early Activity Scale for Endurance for Children With Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: The Early Activity Scale for Endurance (EASE) was developed as a clinically feasible measure of endurance for physical activity in young children with cerebral palsy (CP). Validity and reliability were evaluated. Methods: Participants included 414 children with CP and 106 without CP. Parents completed the EASE, an 11-item self-report measure. For construct validity, EASE scores were compared by Gross Motor Function Classification System levels (0 assigned for children without CP), age, and gender. In subgroups, convergent validity with the 6-minute walk test and test-retest reliability with a second EASE were evaluated. Results: EASE scores differed significantly by Gross Motor Function Classification System, but not by age or gender. The EASE correlated moderately (rs = 0.57) with the 6-minute walk test. Test-retest reliability was high, intraclass correlation (2,1) = 0.95. Conclusion: The EASE has acceptable psychometrics for use in practice and research to estimate endurance for physical activity in young children with CP. This study was designed to examine the reliability and validity of a new measure to evaluate endurance for activity in children with CP. The authors report acceptable psychometrics for use of the EASE in practice and 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".