Exploring the Comparability of the Sensory Organization Test and the Pediatric Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction for Balance in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: The Sensory Organization Test (SOT) and the Pediatric Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction for Balance (PCTSIB) quantify the ability to maintain balance in the presence of sensory conflicts. The purposes were to explore the concurrent validity of these two assessments by comparing the performance of healthy children on the tests and examine the relationship between age and assessment performances thereby exploring the construct validity of the measures. Subjects: Sixteen healthy children (9.8 ± 3.5 yr.). Methods: Children were assessed with both tools during a single session. Results: Only three conditions of the SOT were related to the corresponding PCTSIB conditions: eyes closed in tandem and single leg stance (SLS), and altered vision in SLS. None of the conditions involving altered support surfaces were related. All SOT conditions and four PCTSIB conditions in SLS, were significantly related to age as well as one condition in tandem. Discussion and Conclusion: Although both tests are associated with age, they do not measure sensory organization abilities in the same manner. As such, they each provide different and complementary information about healthy children's ability to maintain balance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".