Validity and reliability of modified box and block test and targeted box and block test in patients with stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The Box and Block Test (BBT) is commonly used to evaluate unilateral manual dexterity in patients with stroke. While the BBT is quick and simple to use, it causes large measurement variability because the administration is not standardized. In this study, we evaluated the validity and reliability of the modified BBT (mBBT) and a targeted BBT (tBBT) in patients with stroke.Method Our participants were 50 patients with stroke. We evaluated the criterion validity of the mBBT and tBBT through its correlations with scores on the 9-Hole Peg Test (9-HPT), the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity test (FMA-UE) and BBT. We analyzed the reliability with test-retest reliability.Results The mBBT was strongly and positively correlated with the 9 HPT (r = 0.823), and strongly negatively correlated the BBT (r = −0.870) for the more-affected hand (p < 0.001). The tBBT was also strongly positively correlated with the 9 HPT (r = 0.913), and the BBT (r = −0.889) for the more-affected hand (p < 0.001). The mBBT was moderately positively correlated with the FMA-UE (r = −0.574), and the tBBT was moderately correlated with (r = −0.604) for the more-affected hand (p < 0.001). The ICCs for the mBBT and the tBBT ranged from 0.86 to 0.97 for the more-affected hand.Conclusion In this sample, the mBBT and tBBT appeared to be valid and reliable for patients with stroke.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".