Validity and reliability of the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB): a pilot study on mobility in the Colombian Andes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the validity (convergent and construct) and reliability of the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) among non-disabled adults between 65 to 74 years of age residing in the Andes Mountains of Colombia. METHODS: Design Validation study; PARTICIPANTS: 150 subjects aged 65 to 74 years recruited from elderly associations (day-centers) in Manizales, Colombia. MEASUREMENTS: The SPPB tests of balance, including time to walk 4 meters and time required to stand from a chair 5 times were administered to all participants. Reliability was analyzed with a 7-day interval between assessments and use of repeated ANOVA testing. Construct validity was assessed using factor analysis and by testing the relationship between SPPB and depressive symptoms, cognitive function, and self rated health (SRH), while the concurrent validity was measured through relationships with mobility limitations and disability in Activities of Daily Living (ADL). ANOVA tests were used to establish these associations. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability of the SPPB was high: 0.87 (CI95%: 0.77-0.96). A one factor solution was found with three SPPB tests. SPPB was related to self-rated health, limitations in walking and climbing steps and to indicators of disability, as well as to cognitive function and depression. There was a graded decrease in the mean SPPB score with increasing disability and poor health. CONCLUSION: The Spanish version of SPPB is reliable and valid to assess physical performance among older adults from our region. Future studies should establish their clinical applications and explore usage in population studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".