Reliability and validity of a computer game-based tool of upper extremity assessment for object manipulation tasks in children with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A computer game-based upper extremity (CUE) assessment tool is developed to quantify manual dexterity of children with Cerebral Palsy (CP). The purpose of this study was to determine test-retest reliability of the CUE performance measures (success rate, movement onset time, movement error, and movement variation) and convergent validity with the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale version 2 (PDMS-2) and the Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test (QUEST). METHODS: Thirty-five children with CP aged four to ten years were tested on two occasions two weeks apart. RESULTS: CUE performance measures of five chosen object manipulation tasks exhibited high to moderate intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) values. There was no significant difference in the CUE performance measures between test periods. With few exceptions, there was no significant correlation between the CUE performance measures and the PDMS-2 or the QUEST test scores. CONCLUSIONS: The high to moderate ICC values and lack of systematic errors indicate that the CUE assessment tool has the ability to repeatedly record reliable performance measures of different object manipulation tasks. The lack of a correlation between the CUE and the PDMS-2 or QUEST scores indicates that performance measures of these assessment tools represent distinct attributes of manual dexterity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".