Reliability of the LIFE-H satisfaction scale and relationship between participation and satisfaction of older adults with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To (1) document the test-retest reliability of the Assessment of Life Habits (LIFE-H 3.1) in measuring the satisfaction of older adults with disabilities regarding their level of participation and (2) explore the relationships between level of participation and satisfaction with the level of participation achieved. METHODS: Thirty older adults having functional disabilities were interviewed twice using the LIFE-H. This questionnaire assesses the (1) participation in daily activities and social roles (life domains), and (2) satisfaction with this participation. RESULTS: The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of the satisfaction total score and its two subscores revealed high reliability (ICCs > or = 0.84). Moderate to excellent ICCs were also obtained for the life domains (ICCs = 0.65-0.88). Satisfaction was positively associated with participation for the daily activities subscore and LIFE-H total score (p < 0.05) but not the social roles subscore. Half of the life domains showed significant correlations between participation and satisfaction scores (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The results support the reliability of the LIFE-H satisfaction scale in older adults having functional disabilities. Also, as satisfaction is only partly related to the level of participation, the study emphasizes the relevance of considering both participation and satisfaction of older adults with disabilities when evaluating their needs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".