MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409663677 · doi:10.1097/pep.0000000000001200

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

2025· article· en· W4409663677 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yannick A D Breeschooten, Johannes J. Noordstar, Maaike C. A. Sprong, Anne de Kievit, Tim Takken, Erik H.J. Hulzebos

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Physical Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInter-rater reliabilityConvergent validityReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyMovement assessmentMotor skillGross motor skillValidityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyRating scaleInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.281 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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