Testing of the Spinal Alignment and Range of Motion Measure: a discriminative measure of posture and flexibility for children with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study we describe the development and preliminary psychometric testing of the Spinal Alignment and Range of Motion Measure (SAROMM). Through consultation with pediatric physiotherapists, the items were refined. Subsequently 25 children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP; 17 males, 8 females) with a mean age of 9 years 8 months (SD 4y 4mo), stratified by the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS, n=5 in each group), were recruited. Twenty-two children had spastic CP, and one each was also diagnosed with hypotonic, athetoid, and mixed CP. Three children had hemiplegia, 12 had diplegia, and 10 had quadriplegia. These participants were examined by two physiotherapists on one occasion and by the primary physiotherapist again two weeks later. The intraclass correlation coefficients reflecting interrater and test-retest reliabilities for the spine and range of motion subscales and the total scores were all above 0.80. Validity was supported by a significant contribution of GMFCS level and age to the SAROMM score (r2=0.44). The SAROMM has sufficient reliability and validity for use with children with CP in clinical and research settings by rehabilitation therapists.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".