Pediatric Co-Norms for Finger Tapping, Grip Strength, and Grooved Pegboard in a Community Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Motor tests, including Finger-Tapping Test, Grooved Pegboard Test, and Grip Strength Test, are frequently used by neuropsychologists when assessing pediatric populations. Many of the norms available for these measures are outdated, have not been co-normed, and have samples with limited diversity. This study aims to provide updated, co-norms for three commonly used motor tasks with a diverse population. METHOD: Participants (n = 476; age range 6-14) were recruited from community settings to complete each of the three motor tests. RESULTS: Results demonstrate generally improved performance across ages with no significant difference between performance of males and females on the Grooved Pegboard Test or the Finger Tapping Test. The only significant findings were on the Grip Strength Test where 12-14-year-old boys demonstrated stronger performance on the dominant hand. CONCLUSION: This study provides updated and co-normed data on frequently used motor tasks with a diverse pediatric sample, which are useful for clinicians.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".