Comparing the Responsiveness of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills and the Functional Independence Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Selecting and utilizing appropriate assessments to evaluate outcomes is an important aspect of evidence-based occupational therapy practice. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM), to which occupational therapists contribute motor and cognitive scores, is currently the only required assessment for evaluating change from admission to discharge on an inpatient rehabilitation unit. However, occupational therapists are also using the motor and process scales from the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) to assess clients and evaluate change. PURPOSE: To compare responsiveness of the AMPS and the FIM on an inpatient rehabilitation unit. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of AMPS measures and FIM scores at admission and discharge was undertaken. Standardized response means and effect sizes were calculated to estimate responsiveness. FINDINGS: No significant difference was found in the ability of the AMPS motor and FIM motor scales to detect change. The AMPS process scale was more responsive to change than the FIM cognitive scale. IMPLICATIONS: Using the AMPS as an assessment to evaluate outcomes allows practitioners to detect changes that may not be detected through the exclusive use of the FIM.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".