The Polish Version of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale: Cultural Adaptation and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) is a diagnostic tool for the assessment of the motor performance of infants from the time of birth, to the period of independent walking (0–18 months). This study aims to derive a Polish version of the AIMS through its cultural adaptation and validation. The study included 145 infants aged 0–18 months, who were divided into four further age groups: 0–3 months, 4–7 months, 8–11 months, and older than 12 months. The validation was based on an analysis of intrarater and interrater reliability values, as well as concurrent validity, using the gross motor scale of Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2). The total Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for intrarater reliability was 0.99 (ICC range in positions was 0.87–0.99, in subgroups was 0.91–0.99), while in particular positions, the ICC ranges were as follows: prone 0.97–0.99, supine 0.94–0.99, sitting 0.95–0.99, and standing: 0.63–0.99. The total ICC for interrater reliability was 0.99 (ICC range in positions was 0.98–0.99, in subgroups was 0.91–0.99), while in particular positions, the ICC ranges were as follows: prone 0.95–0.99, supine 0.93–0.96, sitting 0.93–0.98, standing 0.91–0.98. Only the standing position was analyzed for the subgroup of participants over 12 months old. The Spearman correlation between the Polish version of the AIMS and the gross motor scale of PDMS-2 was significant in the total population (r = 0.97, p < 0.0001) and in subgroups (r = 0.79–0.85, p < 0.0001). The results of our study confirm that the Polish version of the AIMS is reliable for infants aged 0–18 months and can be applied to this population for clinical and scientific purposes. Trial Registry ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05264064, URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ct2/show/NCT05264064 .
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".