Cross-Cultural Validity: Canadian Norm Values of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale Evaluated for Dutch Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine whether the Canadian normative values of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) are appropriate for Dutch infants. METHOD: In a cross-sectional study, 499 infants developing typically (0.5-19 months) were assessed using the AIMS home video method. The scaling method was used for calculating item locations of the Dutch sample, and Welch test to compare Canadian and Dutch raw scores. RESULTS: THE: AIMS items (45 of 58) met the criterion for stable regression to calculate item locations of the Dutch data set and compare these with the Canadian data set. Dutch infants passed 42 of 45 items at an older age. Most monthly age groups of Dutch infants had lower mean AIMS scores. CONCLUSION: The Canadian norms are not appropriate for the Dutch study sample. Dutch infants appear to develop in a similar sequence but at a slower rate. This has implications regarding the clinical use of the AIMS in the Netherlands.
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".