Validation of Three Shortened Versions of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To estimate the reliability and validity of three shortened versions of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI). Method: The study sample consisted of 39 individuals who had had a stroke. Twenty-four individuals were classified as acute and 15 as chronic. The CAHAI-13 was administered three times: an initial assessment, a second assessment within 36 hours, and a final assessment two to six weeks after the initial assessment. The Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment were administered at the first and third time points. Based on the clinical judgment of four therapists, seven-, eight-, and nine-item versions of the CAHAI were produced. Test–retest reliability and cross-sectional and longitudinal validity (sensitivity to change) were evaluated. Results: Test–retest reliability varied from 0.96 for the CAHAI-7 to 0.97 for the CAHAI-8 and CAHAI-9. Cross-sectional validity for the ARAT was 0.95, 0.95, and 0.94, and longitudinal validity was 0.97, 0.93, and 0.94 for the seven-, eight-, and nine-item versions of the CAHAI, respectively. Conclusions: All shortened versions maintained the same high degree of reliability and construct and longitudinal validity as the original CAHAI-13. Therapists and researchers may select from three valid, shorter versions of a new upper limb functional measure to facilitate effective standardized assessment within limited time and resources.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".