The standardization of the Polish version of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) is a standardized tool for assessing gross motor development from birth through independent walking (0-18 months). The AIMS was developed, validated and standardized in the Canadian population. Results of previous studies on the standardization of the AIMS have discerned differences in some samples in comparison with Canadian norms. This study aimed to establish reference values of the AIMS for the Polish population and compare them to Canadian norms. METHODS: The research involved 431 infants (219 girls, 212 boys, aged 0-<19 months), divided into nineteen age groups. The translated into Polish and validated version of the AIMS was used. The mean AIMS total scores and percentiles for every age group were calculated and compared with the Canadian reference values. Raw total AIMS scores were converted to 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles. A one sample t-test was used to compare the AIMS total scores between Polish and Canadian infants (p-value < 0.05). A binomial test was performed to compare percentiles (p-value < 0.05). RESULTS: The mean AIMS total scores in the Polish population were significantly lower in the seven age groups: 0-<1, 1-<2, 4-<5, 5-<6, 6-<7, 13-<14, and 15-<16 months of age (with small to large effect size). A few significant differences were found in the comparison of percentile ranks, mostly in the 75th percentile. CONCLUSION: Our study provides the norms for the Polish AIMS version. According to differences in the mean AIMS total scores and percentiles, the original Canadian reference values are not congruent for Polish infants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05264064. URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05264064 . Date of registration: 03/03/2022.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".