Characterisation of the Clothespin Relocation Test as a functional assessment tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
METHOD: The Clothespin Relocation Test has been adapted from an arm training tool to create an instrument to measure hand function. It is based on the time to move three clothespins from a horizontal to a vertical bar, and back. To be generally useful, the measures need to have their psychometric properties investigated. This paper measures the characteristics of an able-bodied population to gain an understanding of the underlying statistical properties of the test, in order that it can then be used to compare with different subject groups. Fifty adults (29 males, 21 females, mean age 31) were tested with five runs of three clothespins moved up and then down. Ten subjects returned twice more to observe repeatability. RESULTS: There was a non-Gaussian range of times, from 2.5 to 7.37 s. Mean time for Up was 4.1 s, and was 4.0 s for Down, with a skew towards the faster times of 0.57 for Up and 0.97 for Down. Over the three sessions there was a small (not significant) increase in speed 4.1 ± 0.5 s first run Down to 3.5 ± 0.4 s for third. CONCLUSION: These initial tests confirm that it has potential to be used as a measurement of the performance of arm movement.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".