AFFORDANCES IN EARLY MOTOR DEVELOPMENT: THE ROLE OF CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early motor development is a complex phenomenon characterized by a high degree of inter- and intra-individual variability. The primary objective of this work was to test a conceptual model of early motor development that considers the key contextual factors relating to the home environment, infant characteristics, and caregiving practices. Given the lack of appropriate measures targeting these contextual factors, a secondary objective was to develop and run preliminary analyses of two new measures that assess these factors in relation to the motor development of infants aged 4 to 10 months of age.\nFollowing the initial item generation phases, exploratory principal components analyses with varimax rotations were run to determine a factor structure for each measure, followed by a confirmatory factor analysis. These measures were then incorporated into the larger conceptual model, which tested the extent to which these contextual factors explained the variability observed in motor developmental scores as measured by the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Using structural equation modeling, these direct effects, as well as indirect effects mediated through the Daily Activities of Infants Scale are discussed. The measurement model demonstrated good fit indices (% = 477.9, df = 369, p < 0.01; IFI; 0.940; TLI 0.927; CFI 0.938; RMSEA 0.04) indicating the model fits the data. Analysis of path coefficients revealed that the contextual factors did not explain a significant portion of the variance in early motor development (32%). The factor Opportunities in the Playspace was found to explain 24% of the variance in scores and was significant.\nAlthough the results of this work do not provide strong evidence for a role of contextual factors in motor development, they do raise questions about the use of linear statistical analyses to measure non-linear processes and the developmental variations of infants bom full-term and those bom preterm. Full-term infants are known to be resilient and it is suggested that the subtle determinants, such as those concerning contextual factors, might play a more important role in a population of infants who are vulnerable or considered to be at risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".