Developing a revised definition of the Bobath concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was developed as a consensus-building exercise within the International Bobath Instructors Training Association (IBITA) to develop a revised definition of the Bobath concept. METHODS: A three-phase design utilizing (a) focus groups, (b) survey methods, and, (c) real-time Delphi. This paper details Phase 1 and 2. RESULTS: Forty IBITA members participated in five focus groups. Eight broad themes were developed from the focus groups from which the survey statements were developed. There was a high level of agreement on all nine survey statements identifying overarching constructs and on 12 of the 13 statements identifying unique aspects of Bobath clinical practice. Lower scores were attributed to lack of understanding of the term humanistic, Bobath clinical practice addressing multiple domains such as impairments, activities, and participation and limited agreement on the description of the term "placing." CONCLUSION: Focus groups and a web-based survey were successful in soliciting the opinions of IBITA members on themes and statements of importance for the development of a revised Bobath definition. The results of Phase 1 and 2 will inform Phase 3, a real-time Delphi, to gain consensus within IBITA on statements on which a revised Bobath definition is to be based.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".