Inter-rater reliability of formally trained and self-trained raters using the Edmonton Functional Assessment Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to determine the inter-rater reliability of the revised version of the Edmonton Functional Assessment Tool (EFAT-2). A second objective was to determine whether both formally trained and self-trained therapists had an acceptable level of inter-rater reliability. The EFAT-2 was administered to consenting palliative care patients by one of two independent physical therapist rater pairs; one pair self-trained (R1, R2) and the other formally trained (R3, R4). The intraclass correlation [ICC (1,1)] for R1, R2 was 0.97 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-0.99] and for R3, R4 was 0.95 (95% CI 0.90-0.98). The standard error of measurement was 1.09 and 1.44, respectively. The Kappa statistic for the rater pairs on individual EFAT items ranged from 0.17 to 0.96. The results suggest that both formally trained and self-trained therapists obtain an acceptable level of inter-rater reliability when using the EFAT-2.
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 | 0.081 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".