Comparative validity between the Canadian and the Dutch norms of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale in a preterm population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prematurity remains a leading cause of motor developmental delays. The Alberta Infant Motor Scales (AIMS) is a useful tool to easily assess motor development. However, during the last decade, cross-cultural differences have been identified regarding the original AIMS norms. Therefore, the aim of this study is twofold: confirm the validity of the AIMS in a preterm population and compare the new Dutch AIMS norms to the original Canadian ones in our Belgian population. METHOD: Ninety-six preterm infants were assessed simultaneously on the AIMS and on the Bayley Scales of Infant-Toddler Development (Bayley-III) at age 9-14 months. Concurrent validity was evaluated by correlation analysis. Among these, 89 were assessed on the AIMS at age 3-6 months. Clinimetric properties of both AIMS norms were calculated to compare their ability to detect a motor delay on the Bayley-III at age 9-14 months. RESULT: Pearson's coefficient showed an excellent level of correlation between the two scales (r = 0.91). At age 3-6 months, only the 10th Canadian centile showed acceptable properties to predict a significant motor delay. At age 9-14 months, the 5th centile of both norms showed good properties to diagnose a significant motor delay, while only the Canadian norms seems to be sensitive enough to diagnose a mild motor delay. CONCLUSION: The new Dutch norms seem to be less sensitive but more specific than the Canadian ones and therefore require adapted cut-offs to diagnose motor developmental delays in a preterm population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".