MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144384180 · doi:10.3109/01942638.2010.523449

Content Range and Precision of a Computer Adaptive Test of Upper Extremity Function for Children With Cerebral Palsy

2010· article· en· W2144384180 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen Montpetit, Stephen M. Haley, Nathalie Bilodeau, Pengsheng Ni, Feng Tian, George E. Gorton, M.J. Mulcahey

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsShriners Hospitals for Children - Canada
FundersShriners Hospitals for ChildrenPediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America
KeywordsCerebral palsyComputerized adaptive testingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationFunctional Independence MeasurePsychologyRange (aeronautics)Physical therapyTest (biology)Assistive technologyAudiologyMedicineComputer scienceActivities of daily livingDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsHuman–computer interactionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on the content range and measurement precision of an upper extremity (UE) computer adaptive testing (CAT) platform of physical function in children with cerebral palsy. Upper extremity items representing skills of all abilities were administered to 305 parents. These responses were compared with two traditional standardized measures: Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument and Functional Independence Measure for Children. The UE CAT correlated strongly with the upper extremity component of these measures and had greater precision when describing individual functional ability. The UE item bank has wider range with items populating the lower end of the ability spectrum. This new UE item bank and CAT have the capability to quickly assess children of all ages and abilities with good precision and, most importantly, with items that are meaningful and appropriate for their age and level of physical function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In PediatricsSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207