MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332056238 · doi:10.1097/pep.0b013e31826a20f3

Commentary on “Concurrent Validity of the Bayley-III and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale-2”

2012· letter· en· W2332056238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roberta K. O’Shea, Kara Boyniewicz

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Physical Therapy · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayley Scales of Infant DevelopmentGross motor skillConcurrent validityMotor skillChild developmentPediatricsDevelopmental MilestoneMedicineInfant developmentTest (biology)PsychologyDevelopmental ageIntervention (counseling)Developmental psychologyPsychomotor learningPsychometricsCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information in this article is relevant for all pediatric physical therapists working with or testing children in early intervention or in a high-risk neonatal intensive care unit developmental follow-up clinic. This study provides support for using the Bayley-III as a tool to identify children after 19 to 26 months who are at risk for developmental delays but is not as sensitive with infants younger than 6 months. The information helps support families with children who are at risk for developmental delays by using efficient testing tools to examine their development in gross motor and fine motor areas. However, many families are still unsure about developmental delays when their infants are younger than 6 months. Because of the lack of concurrent validity of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale–2 (PDMS-2) for infants younger than 6 months, therapists will need to use the Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP) for infants younger than 4 months and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) for infants 4 months to 12 months of age, in addition to using a developmental test, such as the BSID III. Further studies should look at the concurrent validity of the TIMP and the BSID III for infants aged 0 to 16 weeks to accurately assess the motor development of infants at risk for development delays. This article helps physical therapists realize that, after accurate developmental testing of young children, families may require guidance when making decisions regarding intensity and frequency of therapy. Most importantly, the therapists and adult family members must understand standardized testing for young children and how results affect therapy services and long-term outcomes. “What should I be mindful about in applying this information?” This study demonstrates that young children's abilities must be examined using a standardized test that is easy for the child to tolerate, especially when all domains of development are being evaluated. In addition, not all standardized tools are interchangeable and the therapist must accurately choose and administer the appropriate test. Roberta O'Shea, PT, PhD Governors State University University Park, Illinois Kara Boyniewicz, PT, PCS, ATC FUNdamental Therapy Ltd Chicago, Illinois The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.150
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.150
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0090.003
Research integrity0.0470.064
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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