Reliability and sensitivity to change of the timed standing balance test in children with down syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the reliability and sensitivity to change of the timed standing balance test in children with Down syndrome (DS). METHODS: It was a nonblinded, comparison study with a convenience sample of subjects consisting of children with DS (n = 9) aged 8-17 years. The main outcome measure was standing balance which was assessed using timed standing balance test, the time required to maintain in four conditions, eyes open static, eyes closed static, eyes open dynamic, and eyes closed dynamic. RESULTS: Relative reliability was excellent for all four conditions with an Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) ranging from 0.91 to 0.93. The variation between repeated measurements for each condition was minimal with standard error of measurement (SEM) of 0.21-0.59 s, suggestive of excellent absolute reliability. The sensitivity to change as measured by smallest real change (SRC) was 1.27 s for eyes open static, 1.63 s for eyes closed static, 0.58 s for eyes open dynamic, and 0.61 s for eyes closed static. CONCLUSIONS: Timed standing balance test is an easy to administer test and sensitive to change with strong absolute and relative reliabilities, an important first step in establishing its utility as a clinical balance measure in children with DS.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".