Intra and Inter-Rater Reliability and Convergent Validity of the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA) in Children With a Critical Congenital Heart Defect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study determines the inter- and intra-rater reliability and convergent validity of the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA) for children with critical congenital heart disease (CCHD). METHODS: Forty-one children aged 7 to 10 with CCHD were recruited from the Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Utrecht. The CAMSA and Movement-ABC-2 (M-ABC-2) were assessed concurrently. Four raters independently scored video recordings of the CAMSA at 2 moments at a 2-week interval. RESULTS: The inter- and intra-rater reliability of the CAMSA was excellent with an ICC of 0.94 and 0.95, respectively. A nonstatistically significant trend was found between the CAMSA and the M-ABC-2. CONCLUSIONS: The CAMSA is a reliable measurement for assessing complex motor skills in children aged 7 to 10 with CCHD. The convergent validity between the CAMSA and M-ABC-2 was nonsignificant suggesting these 2 tests measure different motor constructs.
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".