A fluidity scale for evaluating the motor strategy of the rise-to-walk task after stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: (1) To develop an ordinal scale (content validity) for assessing fluidity of the rise-to-walk task (RTW); (2) to examine the concurrent validity of the fluidity scale; (3) to study the inter-rater reliability of the scale. DESIGN: A group of physical therapists participated in the scale development (content validity); a cross-sectional design was used to study the agreement between the fluidity scale and the fluidity index (criterion measure) obtained with the instrumented method (concurrent validity) and to examine the inter-rater reliability of the scale. SETTING: Rehabilitation centre. SUBJECTS: Nineteen persons with a chronic stroke and 19 age- and gender-matched healthy subjects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For the validation study: the fluidity index (FI) and the scores from the fluidity scale; for the inter-rater reliability study: duration of the RTW task and fluidity scores. RESULTS: The FI values did not overlap across categories of the scale and the relationship between FI values and the fluidity scores was 0.99. The weighted kappa (kappa(w)) indicated a substantial level of agreement between the new raters (kappa(w) = 0.78) and between the new raters and the expert rater (kappa(w) = 0.71). Corresponding mean intraclass correlation coefficients for the RTW duration were 0.95. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that the descriptors of the scale provided a gradation of fluidity comparable to the gold standard measure (FI) and that trained clinicians can use the fluidity scale with a substantial level of reliability. The RTW task is a simple clinical tool for assessing mobility and motor strategies (locomotor co-ordination) in patients presenting varying degrees of motor recovery after stroke.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".