Feasibility of the <i>Challenge</i> Assessment, the <i>Gait Outcomes Assessment List</i> and ‘ <i>Moving Together’ (‘Sammen I Bevægels</i> e’), a Group-Based Motor Skills Intervention for Independent School-Aged Children with Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This single group pre and posttest study evaluated the feasibility of a new 10-week group-based motor skills enhancement intervention: “Moving Together,” and associated use of the Challenge assessment and Gait Outcomes Assessment List (GOAL). Participant attendance/completion and satisfaction with the assessments and intervention were evaluated, and a first estimate of associated motor skill-related changes obtained. Ten ambulatory children with cerebral palsy (7–14 years) and their parents participated. Ninety percent of Challenge sessions were attended and 82.5% of GOAL questionnaires completed. Program attendance was 83% overall. Satisfaction with assessments was high for the Challenge and moderate for the GOAL, and intervention satisfaction was high. Mean change scores (95% CI) post-intervention for the Challenge and GOAL were 4.2 (−11.4 to 3.1) and 3.6 (−14.4 to 4.0) points (/100) respectively. Challenge and GOAL use was feasible and appropriate for “MovingTogether” and associated with gains in motor skill performance and functional abilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".