MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975594139 · doi:10.1097/pep.0000000000000642

Commentary on “Cross-Cultural Validity: Canadian Norm Values of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale Evaluated for Dutch Infants”

2019· letter· en· W2975594139 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ana Paula Bensemann Gontijo, Marisa Cotta Mancini

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Physical Therapy · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercentileNormativeScale (ratio)PsychologySupine positionGross motor skillMotor skillPercentile rankDemographyLogistic regressionMedicineEthnic groupDevelopmental psychologyStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“How should I apply this information?” Pediatric therapists use normative data to help determine whether a child differs from his/her peers. This is the second study with Dutch infants that use the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS)1 to assess the gross motor development. Unlike the first study conduct by Fleuren et al2 that compared percentile ranks, this study used a logistic regression method, as suggested by Darrah el al.3 It calculates the item location (places each AIMS item on the age scale), reflecting the age at which 50% of the infants passed the item. Although different analyses, the 2 studies had similar results, with the Dutch infants passing the majority of the AIMS items at a later age, compared with the Canadian group. Despite the observed difference in 41 of 45 items, the magnitude of the range from 0.01 to 14.42 weeks suggests that some of these differences may not be clinically relevant. In 14 of 41 (34%) items, the 2 groups differed by 3 weeks or less. Differences of 0.49 or 0.01 weeks although statistically significant may not be clinically relevant. The magnitude of the differences also varied across test positions. All supine items differed 0 to 3 weeks, while 7 of the 11 standing items differed more than 10 weeks. Clinicians would benefit from information that considers the magnitude of the item differences. Also, what would an AIMS item clinically relevant difference size be that might impact Dutch infants' rate of development? “What should I be mindful about when applying this information?” The sequence of development was similar between Dutch and Canadian infants indicating that motor milestones emerge in the same developmental order. Although the authors conclude that Dutch infants acquire gross motor skills at a later age, they do not explore differences between groups that are clinically relevant. Evidence from cross-cultural studies is most valuable to help therapists understand what aspects of child development may be universal and what are culture specific. Knowledge regarding the mechanisms (ie, specific parental practices) underlying the observed differences and how they may impact the time of acquisition of Dutch infants' gross motor skills will help guide clinical practice. Ana Paula Bensemann Gontijo, PhD Marisa Cotta Mancini, PhD Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Physical TherapySame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207