Analysis of the coverage of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in motor development assessment instruments for children in early childhood education centers: A methodological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), based on the WHO's biopsychosocial model, seeks to understand the individual's functioning in an integrated way, considering more than just biological factors. In child motor development, this approach converges with current theories, highlighting the importance of Early Childhood Education Centers (ECEC) in the acquisition of motor skills during early childhood. Integrated approaches are fundamental to this development. Objective: To analyze the distribution of the coverage of the ICF components in the motor development assessment instruments for children in ECECs. Method: This is a two-part methodological study. The first part consisted of an integrative review conducted in the PUBMED, LILACS and EMBASE databases, using descriptors related to “Child Development” and “Day Care Centers”. No time limitations were applied, and studies published in Portuguese, English or Spanish that presented evaluative measures of children's motor development in ECECs were included. The second part of the study was based on the analysis of five instruments for assessing the motor development of children in ECECs that were found in the previous stage: Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), Bayley Scale of Infant and Toddler Development (BAYLEY-III), Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2), Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development (AHEMD) and Denver Developmental Screening Tests (DENVER-II). The items of these instruments were linked to the components of the ICF, considering the first level classifications and the second level categories, according to the protocol established by Cieza et al. (2016). Results: Between 2004 and 2021, there was a predominance of the biopsychosocial model in the articles that assessed the motor development of children in ECECs, with 81.82% of the studies analyzed using this approach to interpret the results. 107 concepts were linked to the first level of the Body Functions and Structures component and 240 to the Activity and Participation component. 30 concepts from the first level were linked to the Environmental Factors component. At the second level, 10 categories were linked to Body Functions and Structures, 22 to Activity and Participation and 10 to Environmental Factors in the instruments analyzed. Conclusion: There is a predominance of the biopsychosocial health model. However, there is still a prevalence of categories linked to the Body Functions and Structures and Activities and Participation components, compared to the Environmental Factors component, showing a gap in the understanding of functioning as a dynamic and contextual phenomenon.
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 | 0.163 | 0.261 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".