Reliability of the Functional Mobility Scale for Children with Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined inter-rater reliability of the Functional Mobility Scale (FMS) for children with cerebral palsy (CP) and the presence of rater bias. A consecutive sample of 118 children with CP, 2-18 years old (mean 10.3 years, SD 3.6), was recruited from a hospital setting. Children were classified using the gross motor function classification system (GMFCS) with 13 in Level I, 49 in Level II, 44 in Level III, and 12 in Level IV. Each child was independently scored on the FMS by two raters. Raters were randomly assigned from a sample of 44 orthopaedic surgeons, hospital-based physiotherapists, and community-based physiotherapists. Quadratic weighted kappa coefficients for mobility ratings varied from 0.86 to 0.92 for the three distances, indicating substantial chance corrected agreement. Levels of agreement were similar when administering the scale in person and by telephone, suggesting that the FMS can be administered by either method. There was a tendency for surgeons to rate mobility higher than physiotherapists, however, only one of the comparisons was statistically significant. The FMS is a reliable tool that can be used by clinicians to assess mobility in children with CP.
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 | 0.013 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".