Reliability and Validity of a Parent Questionnaire on Childhood Motor Skills
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As the consequences of clumsiness in children become better understood, the need for valid measurement tools is apparent. Parent report has the potential for providing historical knowledge of the child's motor skills, as well as perceptions of their children's motor difficulties. The objective was to develop a parent questionnaire to identify motor difficulties in children. METHOD: A sample of 306 children participated in the development of a 17-item parent questionnaire, called the Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ). Internal consistency, concurrent and construct validity were examined. RESULTS: The DCDQ proved capable of distinguishing children who had motor problems (as measured by standardized tests) from children without motor problems. Correlations with standardized tests were significant. Two other studies confirmed the construct validity of the DCDQ. Factor analysis revealed four distinct factors, useful in defining the nature of the difficulties. CONCLUSION: The DCDQ is a succinct and useful measure for use by occupational therapists.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it