Psychometric properties of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills in patients undergoing rehabilitation following hand-related disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) has been proven to be a suitable measurement tool for assessing performance-based ADL ability; however, its reliability and validity have not been tested on patients with hand-related disorders. Methods Patients referred for outpatient hand rehabilitation were assessed with AMPS, The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), dynamometer and goniometer at baseline and after eight weeks of hand therapy. Construct validity and responsiveness of AMPS were assessed by hypothesis testing. Construct validity was assessed by correlating the baseline score of AMPS with the baseline score of the other measurement tools. Responsiveness was assessed by correlating the change scores of each measurement tool with a Global Rating Scale. Results Fifty-one patients were recruited. The construct validity of AMPS indicated that the various measurement tools captured different aspects to functioning from the AMPS, as the correlations between AMPS and the other measurement tools were generally weak to low (r < 0.25 to 0.49). AMPS was less responsive than COPM when correlated with the GRS. The correlation between COPM and GRS was r = 0.62 compared with the AMPS motor, r = 0.45 and AMPS process, r = 0.33. Relative responsiveness of AMPS is similar to that of the dynamometer (r = 0.39) and goniometer (r = –0.34). Discussion In a sample of 51 patients, this study found that the construct validity of AMPS seemed to be moderate, while the responsiveness of AMPS seemed to be poor. However, due to the small sample size no conclusions can be made, and should be further assessed in larger studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".