MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Psychometric validation of comprehensive coordination scale to assess the advanced coordination ability in people with stroke

2025· article· en· W4412406843 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peiming Chen, Shamay S. M. Ng, Cynthia Y. Y. Lai, Sam Chan, Chak Sing Lau, Hubert Wong, J Liang, J. Li, Tai Wa Liu, Thomson W. L. Wong, Billy C. L. So, Rui‐Hua Xu, Mun Yee Mimi Tse

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Scale (ratio)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPsychometricsPhysical therapyGerontologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aims of this study were to investigate the psychometric property of the Comprehensive Coordination Scale (CCS) in people with stroke. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design. SETTING: University based neurorehabilitation laboratory. POPULATION: Sixty-two people with stroke (33 men; mean ages=67.1±6.4 years; 8.8±4.9 years) and 31 healthy older adults (10 men, mean ages=65.9±4.2 years). METHODS: CCS was conducted on the subjects, followed with ARAT, BBS, LOS, MoCA, and SF-12muscle strength test, Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Lower Extremity (FMA-LE) and Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), muscle strength, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Limit of Stability (LOS) test and 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF12). RESULTS: There was a significant difference (P<0.001) of CCS score between people with stroke (mean difference=48.0±13.5) and healthy older adults (mean difference=62.9±12.1). CCS showed excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.953). The CCS-Total Score showed a significant positive correlation with the average muscle strength of affected side (dorsiflexors, plantarflexors, elbow flexor, and elbow extensor), FMA-UE score, FMA-LE Score, BBS Score, ARAT Score, and LOS (EE and ME) (r=0.387-0.857, P<0.007) in this study. The CCS-total score of 62.5 (sensitivity 83.9%; specificity of 83.9%; AUC=0.892, P<0.001) was shown to distinguish the walking performance between people with stroke and healthy older adults. CONCLUSIONS: The CCS is a reliable, valid and objective assessment tool for evaluating the motor coordination in people with stroke. The CCS exhibited good diagnostic power for distinguishing the coordination ability of individuals with stroke from that of healthy older adults. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Therefore, the CCS is recommended for use in clinical settings to provide a detailed and comprehensive assessment of motor coordination impairment in stroke survivors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 venueEuropean Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207