Comparing 2 Versions of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory With the Action Research Arm Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI) is a new, validated upper-limb measure that uses a 7-point quantitative scale in order to assess functional recovery of the arm and hand after a stroke. The purposes of this study were: (1) to determine whether the longitudinal validity of scores on 2 versions of a new upper-limb measure, the CAHAI (CAHAI-9 and CAHAI-13), was greater than that of scores on the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and (2) to determine whether the cross-sectional and longitudinal validity of the CAHAI-13 scores was greater than that of the CAHAI-9 scores. SUBJECTS: One hundred five people with upper-limb dysfunction following a stroke were stratified into 2 impairment groups (mild to moderate and severe), which were expected to change by different amounts. METHODS: The CAHAI-13 and ARAT were administered twice (time between assessments varied from 2 to 6 weeks). Receiver operating characteristic curves, Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation, and regression analyses were used. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic curve areas (CAHAI-13=0.86, CAHAI-9=0.82, ARAT=0.72) were significantly greater for the CAHAI versions. Scores on both CAHAI versions had identical levels of cross-sectional validity. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Both CAHAI versions demonstrated more sensitivity to change than the ARAT. It remains unclear whether the CAHAI-9 provides precise estimates of CAHAI-13 scores at the individual level.
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".