Analysis and modification of the Test Evaluant les Membres superieurs des Personnes Agees (TEMPA) for use in an adult hand program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Revisions planned include restructuring the writing task, additional scoring changes, and improving the manual to reduce inconsistencies between evaluators. Further reliability and validity studies will then be required. This study evaluated an upper limb functional measure for the elderly and modified it for use with acute hand injuries. Twelve occupational and physiotherapists skilled in hand rehabilitation, analyzed the TEMPA, a performance measure consisting of nine bilateral and unilateral functional tasks. They identified all arm movements, also prehensions, strength, coordination and sensory requirements of the tasks. Making sure to include all essential aspects of function, redundancies were eliminated and the WULFE consisting of three tasks was formulated with revised scoring. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the WULFE was evaluated with 35 clients of an adult hand program. Resulting ICCs ranged from 0.20 to 0.98 with nine of 14 values exceeding 0.80. However, ceiling effects in the scores obtained were a concern.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".