Classroom-Based Assessment: Validation for the School AMPS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of the occupational therapist working in the school system is to facilitate a student's task performance or ability to do purposeful and meaningful activities so that the student benefits from the educational experience. To fulfill this role, occupational therapists need assessments that address functional performance issues in the classroom and provide information for effective programming and consultation. The School Version of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (School AMPS) is an observational evaluation of functional skills in the classroom. Common classroom activities are observed to assess a child's school motor and school process skills. This study examined the validity of the School AMPS by comparing it to the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale-Fine Motor (PDMS-FM), a common assessment used in local area school districts in Edmonton, Alberta. Results show a higher correlation of the PDMS-FM with the motor scale of the School AMPS than with the process scale of the School AMPS, which was expected. The School AMPS appears to be a promising instrument for measuring the constructs of school motor and school process skills within a naturalistic setting.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".