Validity and Reliability of a Pediatric Reach Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate the validity and reliability of a Pediatric Reach Test (PRT). METHODS: The Functional Reach Test was modified to incorporate side reaching in addition to forward reaching in both sitting and standing. Nineteen children developing typically (age 3.0 to 12.5 years) completed the standing section of the PRT as well as laboratory force platform tests of standing balance. On two separate occasions, two different raters evaluated 10 children with cerebral palsy (age 2.6 to 14.1 years) in both the sitting and standing sections of the PRT. RESULTS: Concurrent validity was supported with the observation of moderate-to-high correlations between the standing section of the PRT and laboratory tests of limits of stability (r = 0.42 to 0.77). Construct validity was supported with the observation of high correlations between the standing section of the PRT and a laboratory test of steadiness in quiet stance (r = -0.79) and age (r = 0.83). Construct validity was also supported with a high correlation between the total PRT score and Gross Motor Function Classification System level (rs = -0.88) among the sample of children with cerebral palsy. Test-retest reliability and inter-tester reliability with children with cerebral palsy ranged from intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.54 to 0.88 and 0.50 to 0.93, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that the PRT is a simple, valid, and reliable measure with potential for use with children.
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 | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".