The Relationship Between the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) and the Large Allen Cognitive Level (LACL)Test in Clients with Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between two different assessments used in occupational therapy: occupational based assessment (the assessment of motor and process scales–AMPS) and a body function assessment (the large Allen cognitive levels–LACL). Thirty clients performed both assessments at home after their first stroke. Results indicated moderate positive correlation between the LACL and the AMPS, yet there were discrepancies between the two tools in the determination of independence in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). The gap between the capacity of the person and the actual performance, and the limitations and strengths of each of these assessments is discussed in relation to these contradictions. Further research is recommended with a larger controlled stratified sample. We also suggest examining the predictive value of the motor and process scales of the AMPS and the cognitive level of the LACL for independence in IADL activities. Examining other factors beyond the motor and process functions that might affect independent performance in IADL for stroke survivors is recommended.
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 | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".