Reliability Study of the Items of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) Using Kappa Analysis

Abstract

Purpose: We evaluated the interrater and intrarater reliabilities of the Korean version of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (K-AIMS). Methods: For the interrater reliability test, six raters participated in the K-AIMS evaluation using video clips of 70 infants (aged between 0 and 18 months). One rater participated in an intrarater reliability test. Among 70 infants, 46 were born preterm and 24 were born full term. A total of 58 AIMS items were evaluated for supine, prone, sitting, and standing positions. A reliability analysis was conducted using ICC and Fleiss’ kappa. Results: The highest Fleiss’ kappa was found for the 4–7 months group for sitting (K = 0.701–1.000) and standing (K = 0.721–1.000), while the lowest K was the 3 months or under group for standing (K = 0.153–1.000). We found higher Fleiss’ kappa statistics when all infants were evaluated without grouping for the three positions (K = 0.727–1.000), except standing (K = 0.192–1.000), for the interrater analysis. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the good reliability for the Korean version of the AIMS for Korean infants (preterm and full term).

Inter-Rater Reliability of the Polish Version of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale in Children with Heart Disease

“…In our study, both examiners detected rotation during rolling from supine to prone, and the ICC score for supine in this age group was 0.986. The lowest value of the ICC (0.875) was recorded for standing positions in the 0–3 month age group, which is consistent with studies conducted by the authors from Taiwan [ 53 ] and the Republic of Korea [ 57 ]. This correlation can be attributed to the low variety in standing positions (subjective assessment of active trunk control while standing) described (narrow range of results) for children in the first months of life.…”

“…High agreement between groups of rater/specialists with the same (experienced and/or trained pediatric physical therapists, early intervention specialists with a minimum of three years of experience, and physiotherapists, neurologists and physiatrists) or a different experience in the evaluation of pediatric patients (trained students vs. experienced examiners or physical therapists with different levels of experience) using the AIMS based on live or video observations of typically developing and preterm infants, as well as those at risk for motor delay, was confirmed [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ]. Satisfactory agreement between experienced, trained specialists was also found with different versions of the AIMS other than the English language version [ 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 ]. In 2022, cultural adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the AIMS were assessed.…”

Content Validation and Reliability Study of Workplace Solid Waste Segregation Behaviour

“…(1 -Pc). The evaluation criteria for (K) indices are classified as the values below by following the statement from (Brusseau et al, 2022;Nichols et al, 2010). a) 0.40 to 0.59: low or weak agreement between expert b) 0.6 to 0.74: the moderate agreement between expert c) More than 0.74: excellent or near-perfect agreement between expert Once questionnaires are prepared, a pre-testing study has been done, and a pre-test is a vital next step in the research process.…”

Validation of a Natural Language Processing Algorithm for the Extraction of the Sleep Parameters from the Polysomnography Reports

“…During the judication process of discrepancy, the raters informed about their labels. Additionally, we used the Cohen’s κ, Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) [ 22 , 23 ] to understand the level of reviewers’ agreement. The ICC ranges from zero (no agreement) to one (perfect agreement).…”