Utility of the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument as an Outcome Measure in Patients Participating in Outpatient Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI) in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and to evaluate the accuracy of information obtained through self-report questionnaire versus interview formats. METHODS: The study included 29 patients older than 60 years attending an outpatient cardiac rehabilitation program. Participants completed the LLFDI, three additional self-report criterion measures, and six performance-based tests; they completed the LLFDI a second time via interview. We used descriptive statistics, correlations, and t-tests to analyze the data. RESULTS: All LLFDI components were correlated (rs=0.36-0.83) with the self-report criterion measures. The Function Component of the LLFDI was moderately correlated with the 6-Minute Walk Test (r=0.62), timed up-and-go (r=-0.58), walking speed (r=-0.57), and timed sit-to-stand (r=-0.56) scores. The LLFDI demonstrated a ceiling effect (10%) only in the Disability Limitation component. All LLFDI component scores obtained via self-report questionnaire were correlated with scores obtained via interview; except in a single subcategory, there was no difference between LLFDI scores obtained through self-report questionnaire and those obtained through interview. CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS indicate that the LLFDI has appropriate validity for older patients (>60 years) with CHD and can be completed independently by patients rather than administered by clinicians.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".