The Effectiveness of Integrated Gross Motor Skill Program on The Symptoms of Cerebal Palsy among Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of an integrated gross motor skills program intervention on improving motor functions compared to a control group, with evaluations conducted at three time points: pre-test, post-test, and follow-up. This study involved 40 participants, divided equally into experimental and control groups (N=20 for each group). Both groups were assessed for motor functions at three different times: before the intervention (pre-test), immediately after the intervention (post-test), and a follow-up phase. The experimental group received a specific intervention aimed at improving motor functions, whereas the control group did not receive this intervention. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, analysis of variance with repeated measurements, and Bonferroni post-hoc tests to evaluate the differences between and within the groups over time. The experimental group showed significant improvement in motor functions from pre-test to post-test (mean increase of 11.99, p=0.001) and maintained these improvements at follow-up (mean increase from pre-test of 12.40, p=0.001). The control group's scores remained stable across all time points, indicating no significant change. The analysis of variance confirmed significant effects for time, group, and the interaction between time and group, suggesting that the intervention was effective in enhancing motor functions. The study concluded that the experimental intervention significantly improved motor functions in the participants compared to the control group. These improvements were evident immediately after the intervention and were maintained at the follow-up, highlighting the long-term benefits of the intervention on motor function recovery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".