MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409073897 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/iraf019.027

27 The MacHAND Performance Assessment: Psychometric Testing of the Short English (MPA-S) and French-Canadian (MPA-SF) Forms

2025· article· en· W4409073897 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zoë Edger-Lacoursière, Tara Packham, Alia Sajjad, Bernadette Nedelec, José A. Correa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychometric testingPsychometricsGerontologyClinical psychologyInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The MacHAND performance assessment (MPA) is one of only 2 measures of dexterity and hand function based on the quality of the movement patterns and time to complete tasks. The MPA is easy to assemble, based on common grasp patterns, composed of cost-effective everyday objects and includes stereognosis tasks. However, it takes 20 mins to administer, which is challenging in a clinical setting. Item redundancy in a pilot study suggested a reduced version could be generated. Furthermore, a valid hand performance outcome measure is needed for the hand burn population. Methods The original MPA’s instruction and scoring manual was revised for language consistency, to update pictures, and provide identical 3D printed versions. The MPA-S was developed using a combined statistical and Delphi approach with rehabilitation experts. After finalizing the MPA-S items, an existing dataset MPA was used to assess internal consistency, test-retest and inter-rater reliability for the traumatic hand injury population, as well as agreement with the MPA. The MPA-S was then translated to French-Canadian (MPA-SF) using a forward-backward process. 50 hand burn survivors completed the MPA-SF, along with the Sollerman Hand Function Test and Burn Hand Outcome Tool to establish construct validity. Sessions were video recorded for intra- and inter-rater analysis, with participants re-tested one week later for test-retest analysis. Results For the MPA-S, 10 items were retained for dominant hand testing, 8 for non-dominant. The MPA-S showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha and 95%CI: dominant: 0.85 (0.78, 0.90), non-dominant: 0.88 (0.79, 0.92)), excellent test-retest reliability (r=0.97, 95%CI (0.84, 1), inter-rater reliability (ICC 0.98 (95%CI (0.97, 0.99)) and the mixed effects limits plots show good agreement with the MPA. When tested with the hand burn population, the MPA-SF showed excellent test-retest reliability (r=0.96, 95%CI (0.94,0.98), intra-rater reliability (ICC 0.99 (0.99, 1)) and inter-rater reliability (pre-calibration exercise: (ICC 0.97 (0.96, 0.97) post-calibration: (ICC 0.98 (0.97, 0.99)) for the total scores. Conclusions The MPA 2.0 and MPA-S showed adequate psychometric properties for use with traumatic hand injuries. The MPA-SF demonstrated adequate preliminary psychometric properties for the hand burn population. Construct validity evaluation is ongoing. Applicability of Research to Practice All forms of this measure are publicly available, providing a cost-effective, standardized measure for hand function. Funding for the Study Fondation des pompiers du Québec, Ordre des ergothérapeutes su Québec (OEQ), and REPAR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.449
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.067 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207