Psychometric evaluation of a motor control test battery of the craniofacial region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to determine the structural and known-group validity as well as the inter-rater reliability of a test battery to evaluate the motor control of the craniofacial region. Seventy volunteers without TMD and 25 subjects with TMD (Axes I) per the DC/TMD were asked to execute a test battery consisting of eight tests. The tests were video-taped in the same sequence in a standardised manner. Two experienced physical therapists participated in this study as blinded assessors. We used exploratory factor analysis to identify the underlying component structure of the eight tests. Internal consistency (Cronbach's α), inter-rater reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient) and construct validity (ie, hypothesis testing-known-group validity) (receiver operating curves) were also explored for the test battery. The structural validity showed the presence of one factor underlying the construct of the test battery. The internal consistency was excellent (0.90) as well as the inter-rater reliability. All values of reliability were close to 0.9 or above indicating very high inter-rater reliability. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.93 for rater 1 and 0.94 for rater two, respectively, indicating excellent discrimination between subjects with TMD and healthy controls. The results of the present study support the psychometric properties of test battery to measure motor control of the craniofacial region when evaluated through videotaping. This test battery could be used to differentiate between healthy subjects and subjects with musculoskeletal impairments in the cervical and oro-facial regions. In addition, this test battery could be used to assess the effectiveness of management strategies in the craniofacial region.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".