Evaluating the Measurement Properties of the ScanCourse, a Dual-Task Assessment of Visual Scanning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The ScanCourse is used by occupational therapists to evaluate visual scanning ability during locomotion. Its measurement properties have not been examined. OBJECTIVE: To assess the interrater reliability, test-retest reliability, and construct validity of the ScanCourse. DESIGN: This study involved data collection at two time points. To assess test-retest reliability, the ScanCourse was administered twice within a 2-week period. To assess interrater reliability, a second rater was present for one session. To assess level of agreement, a Bland-Altman plot was created. To assess absolute reliability, the standard error of measurement was calculated. To evaluate construct validity, the results of the ScanCourse were compared with results of the Bells Test and Trail Making Test A and B. SETTING: Rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one patients with neurological impairments. Outcomes and Measures: The ScanCourse (participants identify numbered cards placed on both sides of a hallway at various heights during locomotion). RESULTS: The ScanCourse was found to have excellent interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] [1,1] = .998; 95% confidence interval [CI] [.996-.999]), test-retest reliability (ICC [1,1] = .912; 95% CI [.811-.959]), a high level of agreement, and a low standard error of measurement (.503), and it was found to be significantly correlated with Trails A (rs = -.436, p = .009) and B (rs = -.364, p = .029). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The assessment was found to have strong measurement properties, and it is therefore an appropriate tool for assessing dual-task visual scanning among those with neurological impairments. What This Article Adds: This research demonstrates that the ScanCourse is reliable between raters and over time and that scores on the measure vary as anticipated with scores on a related measure, which provides evidence of its validity. These findings support its use in practice.
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 | 0.011 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".