Concurrent Validity and Reliability of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale in Infants at Dual Risk for Motor Delays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concurrent validity of scores for the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and the Peabody Developmental Gross Motor Scale-2 (PDGMS-2) was examined with a sample of 35 infants at dual risk for motor delays or disabilities. Dual risk was defined as low birthweight (<or= 1,500 g at birth) and environmental risk (children from low-income families). Measures were administered to participants during one visit to a high-risk, follow-up program. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were high (r= .90 to .97), with the highest correlation between PDGMS-2 locomotion subscale and AIMS total score. Correlation coefficients were lower for infants > 9 months of age. Novice examiners' scores on both measures closely approximated those of experienced examiners (ICC range = .98 to .99). The results support concurrent validity of the AIMS and PDGMS-2 for infants at dual risk and have implications for using the AIMS in high-risk follow-up programs, particularly in relation to evaluating functional components of motor performance and ease of administration.
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) | 0.000 | 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".