Validity and Reliability of Physical Functioning Computer-adaptive Tests for Children With Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the concurrent validity and reliability of scores from 4 new parent-report computer-adapted testing (CAT) programs developed to measure the physical functioning of children with cerebral palsy (CP). The Shriners Hospitals for Children CP-CAT battery includes upper-extremity skills, lower-extremity and mobility skills, activity, and global physical health. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 91 children with CP who were tested cross-sectionally and 27 children with CP who were administered the CP-CAT programs twice within approximately a 1-month interval. We examined the concurrent validity of the 4 Shriners Hospitals for Children CP-CAT programs by Pearson correlations with comparative parent-report instruments. The scale reliability was tested by developing estimates of marginal reliability; test-retest reliability was assessed by intraclass correlations. RESULTS: Pearson correlations were moderate to high in matching content domains of the CATs with the comparison measures. Marginal reliability estimates were always better for the CAT program than the comparative instruments. Average test-retest reliability using Intraclass correlations across the 4 CATs was ICC3,1=0.91 with a range of 0.88 to 0.94. CONCLUSIONS: We found the CAT scores to be related to expected domains from external instruments, to have good scale reliability, and to have stable scores as determined by test-retest reliability. These results support the use of parent-report CATs in the assessment of physical functioning 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 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".