Development and Pilot Testing of the Challenge Module: A Proposed Adjunct to the Gross Motor Function Measure for High-Functioning Children with Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to develop a Challenge Module (CM) as a proposed adjunct to the Gross Motor Function Measure for children with cerebral palsy who have high-level motor function. Items were generated in a physiotherapist (PT) focus group. Item reduction was based on PTs' ratings of item importance and safety via online surveys. The proposed CM items were pilot-tested with children in Gross Motor Function Classification System Level I. The focus group identified 35 items for consideration. The first item-reduction survey (n = 86 PT respondents) resulted in 20 items. A second survey yielded two additional items. Seven pilot-test participants (6-14 years) had a CM total mean score of 74.5% (SD = 19.4). Three easy items were subsequently removed and two items combined. Of seven additional items suggested by the children during testing, two were accepted in a third item-reduction survey. The final result was a 20-item CM to evaluate advanced motor skills. The CM requires refinement through Rasch scaling and formal validation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".