Performance of Children on the Community Balance and Mobility Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the performance of children 8-11 years of age on the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M) and associations between performance and age, body mass index (BMI), and sex. A convenience sample of 84 was recruited. The CB&M was administered using instructions we developed for children. Mean CB&M total scores (95% confidence intervals) for age groups were 8: 70.1 (64.2, 76.1); 9: 72.8 (68.7, 76.8); 10: 79.2 (76.6, 81.7); and 11: 82.9 (79.2, 86.5). None of the children achieved the maximum score. Scores increased with age, and overweight/obese children had relatively lower scores. There were no significant differences between males and females. A regression analysis found 28.1% of the variation in the CB&M total scores was explained by age (p < .001), BMI (p < .01), and sex (p = .25) suggesting that other factors contribute to variation in balance and mobility proficiency. The modified instructions and scoring patterns from this study can assist in using the CB&M in children of ages 8-11 years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".