Validação do Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT) para a língua portuguesa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People have been using strategies that support the practice of health professionals, through scales/tests, such as the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT). Thus, one aimed: to validate the HINT version in Portuguese language; to evaluate the reliability interclass and test-retest of the adapted version to Portuguese language of the HINT; to evaluate the concurrent validity with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). Methodological, longitudinal study with sample for consecutive convenience composed by 73 children and parents attended in de Center of Family Development (CEDEFAM) in Fortaleza-CE-Brasil, between September 2007 and December 2008. In two stages: pretest with seventeen children, and test of the HINT’s final version with 73 children, in three moments. On the first moment, children at the age of 3 months and 16 days to 5 months and 15 days the Hint being applied by two raters trained properly. Then reapplication of Hint, 2 to 9 days after initial evaluation by one evaluator. And third, between 8 months and 16 days to 10 months and 15 days, using the same criteria of the first evaluation. The information was stored anonymously in the database using the Excel program and SPSS ® for the calculation of psychometric properties. The ethical aspects were guarded and respected. After the pre-test, two expressions were adapted to culture, namely: Public health nurse and occipital-frontal Circumference (OFC). Most children were born by vaginal delivery (78.1%) weighing over 2500g; average height of 48.51, average PC of 34.22 and PT between 30 to 39.5. The average GI is 37, 86 weeks. The maternal profile / caregiver shows the majority of single mothers (64.4%), with average age of 27.42 years. The paternal data (n = 54), indicate the average age of 25.9 years. Most mothers say they are black (54.8%) and brown parents (63%), unemployed (63%) and parents around 74% with profitable occupation. Regarding the income, 35 families (47.9%) earn one to two salaries. Parents had an average of 5.6 years of study, having the majority at least started high school. When it comes to interclass reliability, the first evaluation showed the Kendall tau b coefficient between 0.501 and 1.00. Out of the 21 Hint items, 4, 7, 12, 18, 19, 20 and 21 had 100% of concordance. In the third, an item did not reach excellent agreement, and 15, with 100% of reliability. Calculated the correlation of the total, one obtained the figure of 0.801 (p = 0.001) and 0.898 (p = 0.001) in the first and third assessment, respectively. In the test-retest, the items 4, 7, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 reach 100% of agreement. Only item 2 (retraction of the neck) showed low reliability, however, all the others were good (items 3, 10, 15 and 16) and excellent (items 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 17). The total score had excellent reliability (α = 0.942). Concerning the validity of criterion, the results of the final scores of Hint and AIMS, using correlation coefficient r of Pearson between the two instruments, on the 1st and on the 3rd evaluation, both used at the same time. Between 3.5 to 5.5 months, the first evaluator (r = -0, 673; HINT p = 0.760; AIMS p = 0.313) and second (r = -0, 670; HINT p = 0.682, p = 0.080 AIMS) had moderate correlation. This occurred between 8.5 and 10.5 months for the first evaluator: r = -0.512; HINT p = 0.102, p = 0.136 AIMS and the second: r =- 0.523; HINT p = 0.110; AIMSp = 0, 144. The total score of the HINT, on the first evaluation was 11 to 39, and o the third, 0 to 17.5. All scores were classified as advanced or within normal limits, according to the age group. Mothers classified them as development above the expected standard or according to age. Thus, it is confirmed validity and reliability. One suggests that HINT is applied in other situations and contexts.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".