Reliability and Validity of the Four-Point Pusher Score: An Assessment Tool for Measuring Lateropulsion and Pusher Behaviour in Adults after Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The authors determined the reliability and validity of the Four-Point Pusher Score (4PPS) among stroke survivors. Method: Stroke survivors were invited to participate within 48 hours of admission to a stroke rehabilitation unit in a tertiary hospital. Intrarater reliability was determined by examining scores assigned to the same patient by the same physiotherapist. Interrater reliability was determined by examining scores assigned to the same patient by two other physiotherapists. Validity was determined by examining associations with the Burke Lateropulsion Scale (BLS), Scale for Contraversive Pushing (SCP), and functional scales. Results: A total of 85 participants who were a median of 13 (interquartile range 9–21) days post-stroke completed this study. The weighted κ statistic for 4PPS intra- and interrater reliability was 0.97 ( p < 0.001). Scores on the 4PPS were very strongly associated with scores on the BLS ( r s = 0.95) and the SCP ( r s = 0.86). Strong associations were evident between the 4PPS and the Berg Balance Scale ( r s = –0.77), Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment postural control scale ( r s = –0.76), and FIM Motor sub-scale ( r s = –0.64; all ps < 0.001). Conclusion: The 4PPS is a reliable and valid scale to assess lateropulsion and pusher behaviour in stroke survivors in an in-patient rehabilitation setting.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".