MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602374176 · doi:10.1111/cch.12459

Relative age effects in the Movement Assessment Battery for Children‐2: age banding and scoring errors

2017· review· en· W2602374176 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Veldhuizen, Lisa Rivard, John Cairney

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovement assessmentMedicineRelative riskQuantitative assessmentDemographyAudiologyConfidence intervalMotor skillPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC-2) uses age-grouped scoring, which will result in relative motor functioning being overestimated for some children and underestimated for others. In this paper, we measure these errors and discuss their consequences. METHOD: We pool data from two validation studies to obtain a sample of 278 children assessed with the MABC-2 (mean (SD) age: 5 years, 0 months (9.6 months); 142 female). We used regression to measure the association between standard score and relative age, and used these results to estimate misclassification rates at the MABC-2's recommended thresholds. RESULTS: Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 scores were distributed as expected (mean (SD) = 10.4 (2.8)). We estimated that the standard score varied by 2.76 units (0.92 SDs) per year of relative age. Depending on threshold and age bandwidth, this implies overall misclassification rates from 9% to 23%. INTERPRETATION: Relative age differences in MABC-2 scores led to substantial systematic error for young children. These errors can affect MABC-2 validity, longitudinal stability and agreement with other tools, which may reduce the appropriateness of care offered to children. Scoring approaches that may reduce or eliminate these errors are outlined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Care Health and DevelopmentSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207