The reliability of testing hand function among adults with autism and an intellectual disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Motor impairments have recently been acknowledged as a core symptom of autism. However, few reliable measures of motor control are available for individuals with autism, especially adults. Given that common behavioural characteristics of autism create uncertainty surrounding the reliability of collected data, determining population-specific reliability of standardized motor control measures is warranted. Purpose: To determine the test-retest reliability of four subtests of the Jebsen Test of Hand Function (JTHF) for adults with autism and an intellectual disability (A-ID). Participants: Eleven adults diagnosed with A-ID (mean age = 35.5 years; range = 20-61 years; 2 females). Procedures: Participants completed four subtests of the JTHF with each hand once a week for three consecutive weeks to yield three trials for each subtest. The subtests of the JTHF that were completed included: card turning, small objects, checkers and heavy cans. Statistical Analysis: An absolute agreement intra-class correlation (ICC) based on a 2-way random ANOVA was conducted for each subtest. Results: Very high test-retest reliability was evidenced by ICC values greater than 0.9 for each of the four completed subtests of the JTHF. Conclusion: The four JTHF subtests that were completed are suggested to be reliable motor control measures among adults with A-ID, which allows speculation that such population-specific reliability would extend to the total JTHF. As such, future studies would expand the literature by identifying the severity of disability within the sample population while examining the reliability of the total JTHF with a larger sample size of adults with A-ID.Acknowledgments: Community Living Essex County, Autism Ontario
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".