Development of the Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development–Infant Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study reports the development and application of the Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development-Infant Scale (AHEMD-IS), a parental self-report designed to assess the quantity and quality of affordances in the home environment that are conducive to motor development for infants aged 3-18 months. METHODS: Steps in its development included use of expert feedback, establishment of construct validity, interrater and intrarater reliability, and predictive validity. With all phases of the project, 113 homes were involved. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients for interrater and intrarater reliability for the total score were 1 and 0.94, respectively. In addition, results indicate that the test has the characteristic of differentiating a wide range of scores. Regression analysis for the AHEMD-IS and motor development using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale supports preliminary evidence for predictive validity. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the AHEMD-IS has sufficient reliability and validity as an instrument for assessing affordances in the home environment, with clinical and research applications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".