Refinement, Reliability, and Validity of the Segmental Assessment of Trunk Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: The Segmental Assessment of Trunk Control (SATCo) provides a systematic method of assessing discrete levels of trunk control in children with motor disabilities. This study refined the assessment method and examined reliability and validity of the SATCo. Methods: After refining guidelines, 102 video recordings of the SATCo were made of 8 infants with typical development followed longitudinally from 3 to 9 months of age and 24 children with neuromotor disability with a mean age of 10 years 4 months. Eight researchers independently scored recordings. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficient values for interrater reliability were more than 0.84 and 0.98 across all data sets and all aspects of control. Tests of concurrent validity with the Alberta Infant Motor Scales resulted in coefficients ranging from 0.86 to 0.88. Conclusion: The SATCo is a reliable and valid measure allowing clinicians greater specificity in assessing trunk control. The authors report strong results in their study of the reliability and validity of their test of segmental control of the trunk. This work will provide clinicians with the ability to conduct more definitive assessments of trunk control in children with neuromuscular disorders.
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 | 0.017 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".