Development of a Comprehensive Outcome Measure for Motor Coordination, Step 2: Reliability and Construct Validity in Chronic Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background A comprehensive scale assessing motor coordination of multiple body segments was developed using a 3-phase content validation process. The Comprehensive Coordination Scale (CCS) evaluates motor coordination defined as the ability to produce context-dependent movements of multiple effectors in both spatial and temporal domains. The scale assesses motor coordination in individuals with neurological injuries at 2 levels of movement description: the motor performance level describes end point movements (ie, hand, foot), and the movement quality level describes limb joints/trunk movements contributing to end point movement. Objective To determine measurement properties of the scale in people with chronic stroke. Methods Standardized approaches determined the internal consistency (factor loadings), intrarater and interrater reliability (interclass correlation coefficient), measurement error (SEM; minimal detectable change [MDC]), construct validity, and interpretability (ie, ceiling and floor effects) of the CCS. Results Data from 30 patients with chronic stroke were used for the analysis. The internal consistency of the scale was high (0.94), and the scale consisted of separate factors characterizing end point motor performance and movement quality. Intrarater (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97-0.97) and interrater (ICC=0.76-0.98) reliability of the whole scale and subscales were good to excellent. The CCS had an SEM of 1.80 points (total score = 69 points) and an MDC 95 of 4.98 points. The CCS total score was related to Fugl-Meyer Assessment total and motor scores and had no ceiling or floor effects. Conclusions The CCS scale has strong measurement properties and may be a useful measure of spatial and temporal coordination deficits in chronic stroke survivors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".