MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159514385 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20080189

Harris Infant Neuromotor Test: Comparison of US and Canadian Normative Data and Examination of Concurrent Validity With the Ages and Stages Questionnaire

2009· article· en· W2159514385 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Westcott McCoy, Alicia Bowman, Jessica Smith-Blockley, Katie Sanders, Antoinette M Megens, Susan R. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeConcurrent validityTest (biology)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyTest validityClinical psychologyPsychometricsInternal consistencyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT) was developed as a screening tool for potential motor and cognitive developmental disorders in infants. Scoring on the HINT has been shown to be reliable, and several studies have supported the validity of the HINT. Normative values for the tool have been developed using Canadian infants. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were (1) to further evaluate the validity of the HINT by comparing data obtained on US infants who were developing typically with data previously acquired on Canadian infants and (2) to determine the concurrent validity of the HINT with the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ). Secondary analyses of HINT scores for US white and nonwhite infants and for US infants who had parents with lower levels of education and US infants who had parents with higher levels of education (as a proxy for socioeconomic status [SES]) were conducted. DESIGN: Cross-sectional exploratory and quasi-experimental comparative research designs were used to evaluate the validity of the HINT. METHODS: Sixty-seven infants from the United States who were developing typically and who were aged 2.5 to 12.5 months were recruited via convenience sampling. Sixty-four of these infants were compared with Canadian infants matched for age, sex, ethnicity or race, and parental education. The HINT was administered by raters who had been trained to attain acceptable levels of interrater reliability, and parents completed the ASQ. The HINT scores for US white versus nonwhite infants (n=46) and infants who had parents with lower SES versus a higher SES (n=52) were compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between HINT total scores for US and Canadian infants or for US racial or ethnic groups and SES groups. There were high correlations (r=-.82 to -.84) between HINT and ASQ scores. LIMITATIONS: The study used a small US sample with limited geographical diversity. Small sample numbers also did not allow for comparisons of specific racial or ethnic groups. The SES groups were created primarily using parental education as a proxy for SES. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that HINT screening in the United States is supported on the basis of Canadian norms and the validity of the HINT in screening for motor and cognitive delays. Although there is preliminary support for the HINT as an appropriate screening tool for US infants who are nonwhite or who have parents with a lower SES, more research is warranted.

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 score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207