Development and Psychometric Properties of the Ambulatory Self-Confidence Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ambulation is one of the most important elements of mobility, and difficulty with ambulation is often cited as a common problem among older adults. Self-report assessments (e.g. walking confidence) provide complementary information to performance tests (e.g. the Timed Up and Go Test, TUG) because they offer data not obtainable from a test of walking performance. OBJECTIVE: To develop and assess the reliability and the content and construct validity of the Ambulatory Self-Confidence Questionnaire (ASCQ), a new measure of walking confidence. METHODS: This descriptive methodological study used data from two samples. The first sample included 31 individuals (13 community-dwelling older adults, aged 65 years and older and 18 academics, clinicians, and researchers working in the area of ambulatory care and geriatrics and medicine) who assisted in establishing the content validity. Participants were asked to complete two surveys to assess the content of the ASCQ. For the second sample 101 community-dwelling older adults (>/=65 years old) were recruited, from community centers, senior day centers, and geriatric clinics in order to determine the reliability and construct validity of the ASCQ. The ASCQ was completed twice over a 2-week interval while other measures such as the TUG, the 6-Min Walk Test (6MWT), the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (ABC) and the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale (IADL) were completed once in order to assess validity. RESULTS: Group consensus was obtained for a 22-item version of the ASCQ. Of the 101 participants recruited for the project, 67 provided complete information for test-retest reliability and 91 provided information for assessment of validity. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.95) and test-retest reliability (ICC(1.1) = 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87, 0.95) were excellent. The ASCQ was: (1) highly correlated with the ABC scale (rho = 0.87); moderately correlated with the TUG (rho = -0.46) and the 6MWT (rho = 0.36); and weakly correlated with the IADL (rho = 0.27). CONCLUSION: The ASCQ is reliable and support for validity is evident for this sample of community-dwelling older adults. Further studies are needed to assess the reliability and validity in a frailer older adult sample. The ASCQ may be useful to clinicians and researchers alike for determining an older adult's confidence with their walking ability.
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 | 0.008 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".