Cross‐cultural validity of standardized motor development screening and assessment tools: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate whether standardized motor development screening and assessment tools that are used to evaluate motor abilities of children aged 0 to 2 years are valid in cultures other than those in which the normative sample was established. METHOD: This was a systematic review in which six databases were searched. Studies were selected based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and appraised for evidence level and quality. Study variables were extracted. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies representing six motor development screening and assessment tools in 16 cultural contexts met the inclusion criteria: Alberta Infant Motor Scale (n=7), Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd edition (n=2), Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, 3rd edition (n=8), Denver Developmental Screening Test, 2nd edition (n=4), Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (n=1), and Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, 2nd edition (n=1). Thirteen studies found significant differences between the cultural context and normative sample. Two studies established reliability and/or validity of standardized motor development assessments in high-risk infants from different cultural contexts. Five studies established new population norms. Eight studies described the cross-cultural adaptation of a standardized motor development assessment. INTERPRETATION: Standardized motor development assessments have limited validity in cultures other than that in which the normative sample was established. Their use can result in under- or over-referral for services.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it