Reliability of the Motor Learning Strategy Rating Instrument for Children and Youth with Acquired Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate reliability and feasibility of the Motor Learning Strategy Rating Instrument (MLSRI) in children with acquired brain injury (ABI). The MLSRI quantifies the extent to which motor learning strategies (MLS) are used within physiotherapy (PT) interventions. METHODS: PT sessions conducted by ABI team physiotherapists with a convenience sample of children with ABI (4-18 years) were videotaped and independently scored later by two raters trained in MLSRI use. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated intra- and inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: Eighteen PT sessions were evaluated. Intra- and inter-rater reliability ICCs for total score were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.66-0.94) and 0.50 (95% CI: 0.08-0.78), respectively. MLSRI category ICCs were 0.56-0.86 (intra-rater) and 0.16-0.84 (inter-rater). CONCLUSIONS: Intra-rater reliability of MSLRI total score was excellent. Moderate inter-rater reliability may partially be due to inconsistent item interpretation between raters. Revisions and further reliability testing are required before recommending the MLSRI for clinical and research use.
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 | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".