Test-retest reliability of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology 2.0-Korean version for individuals with spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Purpose] The study purpose was to investigate the test-retest reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology 2.0-Korean version (QUEST-K) for individuals with traumatic spinal cord injury. [Subjects and Methods] Seventy participants with spinal cord injury were enrolled in this study. The participants were assessed using the QUEST-K in two sessions conducted 3 days apart. This study also utilized the spinal cord independence measure III and modified Barthel index for determining their validity concurrently with the QUEST-K. [Results] The test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.855) of the QUEST-K was high, indicating a good agreement. The results of the QUEST-K testing were not substantially positively correlated with those of the spinal cord independence measure III (r = -0.075) and Modified Barthel Index (r=-0.138). [Conclusion] The test-retest reliability of the QUEST-K was high in individuals with spinal cord injury. The QUEST-K could be a reliable measure for evaluating the satisfaction with assistive technology during functional performance in patients with spinal cord injury. The ability of the QUEST-K to detect actual changes is acceptable for research and clinical settings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".