MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relationship between the Kinarm Standard Test of upper body coordination and school success in secondary students    

2024· preprint· en· W4400662974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J.P. Hale, John R. Kirby, Kristy Timmons, Stephen H. Scott

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)PsychologyMathematics educationGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Almost 18% of Ontario students received special education support through an IEP in the 2023-2024 school year. These students may have been identified as needing support with diagnosis such as learning disability or Autism or with a non-identified IEP. In this paper we will refer to these students as having a learning differences. The connection between learning difference and difficulties with motor control is well documented but not well understood, partly due to underdiagnosis and the lack of standardized assessment criteria. The Kinarm, a robotic assessment tool, is a quick and objective measure of sensory, motor, and cognitive functions. This research explored the use of the Kinarm as an assessment tool for coordination in high school students and the relationship between Kinarm standard tests (KSTs) and school success measures such as naming speed tasks, word reading, teacher generated grades, and standardized testing.Methods: Thirty-nine high school students completed 7 of the KSTs. Students also completed rapid digit naming, word reading, and working memory task. Academic and testing scores were collected. Visual exploratory analysis was conducted along with Pearson correlations (1-tailed).Results: There were moderate correlations between a variety of co-ordination tasks and cognitive/school scores. The correlations remained moderate after controlling for speed and continued to be evident after an adjustment for false discovery rate.Discussion: Despite a small sample size and limited number of neurodiverse participants this research confirms a relationship between co-ordination and measures of school success. Students with Individual Education Plans appeared more often as outliers in movement measures. This study confirms the feasibility of using a robotic assessment with high school students. Future studies can explore the use of Kinarm with a larger sample and larger number of exceptional learners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207