Normative Ranges for, and Interrater Reliability of, Rotational Vestibular and Balance Tests in U.S. Military Service Members and Veterans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to (a) describe normative ranges-expressed as reference intervals (RIs)-for vestibular and balance function tests in a cohort of Service Members and Veterans (SMVs) and (b) to describe the interrater reliability of these tests. METHOD: As part of the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC)/Traumatic Brain Injury Center of Excellence 15-year Longitudinal Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Study, participants completed the following: vestibulo-ocular reflex suppression, visual-vestibular enhancement, subjective visual vertical, subjective visual horizontal, sinusoidal harmonic acceleration, the computerized rotational head impulse test (crHIT), and the sensory organization test. RIs were calculated using nonparametric methods and interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients between three audiologists who independently reviewed and cleaned the data. RESULTS: Reference populations for each outcome measure comprised 40 to 72 individuals, 19 to 61 years of age, who served either as noninjured controls (NIC) or injured controls (IC) in the 15-year study; none had a history of TBI or blast exposure. A subset of 15 SMVs from the NIC, IC, and TBI groups were included in the interrater reliability calculations. RIs are reported for 27 outcome measures from the seven rotational vestibular and balance tests. Interrater reliability was considered excellent for all tests except the crHIT, which was found to have good interrater reliability. CONCLUSION: This study provides clinicians and scientists with important information regarding normative ranges and interrater reliability for rotational vestibular and balance tests in SMVs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".