Playfully Assessing Lower Extremity Selective Voluntary Motor Control in Children With Cerebral Palsy: Psychometric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Objective measures specifically assessing selective voluntary motor control are scarce. Therefore, we have developed an interval-scaled assessment based on accelerometers. OBJECTIVE: This study provided a preliminary evaluation of the validity and reliability of this novel gamelike assessment measuring lower limb selective voluntary motor control in children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHODS: Children with CP and their neurologically intact peers were recruited for this psychometric evaluation of the assessgame. The participants played the assessgame and steered an avatar by selective hip, knee, or ankle joint movements captured with accelerometers. The assessgame's scores provide information about the accuracy of the selective movement of the target joint and the amplitude and frequency of involuntary movements occurring in uninvolved joints. We established discriminative validity by comparing the assessgame scores of the children with CP with those of the neurologically intact children, concurrent validity by correlations with clinical scores and therapists' opinions, and relative and absolute test-retest reliability. RESULTS: We included 20 children with CP (mean age 12 years and 5 months, SD 3 years and 4 months; Gross Motor Function Classification System levels I to IV) and 31 neurologically intact children (mean age 11 years and 1 month, SD 3 years and 6 months). The assessgame could distinguish between the children with CP and neurologically intact children. The correlations between the assessgame's involuntary movement score and the therapist's rating of the occurrence of involuntary movements during the game were moderate (Spearman ρ=0.56; P=.01), whereas the correlations of the assessgame outcomes with the Selective Control Assessment of the Lower Extremity and Gross Motor Function Classification System were low and not significant (|ρ|≤0.39). The intraclass correlation coefficients were >0.85 and indicated good relative test-retest reliability. Minimal detectable changes amounted to 25% (accuracy) and 44% (involuntary movement score) of the mean total scores. The percentage of children able to improve by the minimal detectable change without reaching the maximum score was 100% (17/17) for the accuracy score and 94% (16/17) for the involuntary movement score. CONCLUSIONS: The assessgame proved reliable and showed discriminative validity in this preliminary evaluation. Concurrent validity was moderate with the therapist's opinion but relatively poor with the Selective Control Assessment of the Lower Extremity. We assume that the assessment's gamelike character demanded various other motor control aspects that are less considered in current clinical assessments.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".