The Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined the construct validity of the physical activity recall assessment for people with spinal cord injury (PARA-SCI). METHODS: First, to assess convergent validity, relationships between PARA-SCI scores and measures of aerobic fitness and muscular strength were examined among 73 men and women with SCI. Second, extreme groups analyses were conducted. PARA-SCI scores from 158 people with SCI were compared between groups differing on demographic, disability, and behavioral characteristics. RESULTS: Scores from the leisure time physical activity (LTPA) and cumulative activity PARA-SCI categories correlated positively with parameters of aerobic fitness and muscular strength. Scores from the lifestyle activity PARA-SCI category were not consistently associated with fitness parameters. LTPA category scores could differentiate between groups differing by age, sex, gym or sports team membership, and frequency of participation in LTPA. Lifestyle and cumulative activity scores were unable to distinguish between most groups. CONCLUSION: The convergent validity study provided evidence of validity for the PARA-SCI LTPA and cumulative activity categories. The extreme groups analyses provided further evidence of the validity of the LTPA category by demonstrating differences in extreme groups. Together, these findings contribute to the accumulating evidence of the construct validity of the PARA-SCI LTPA category and its utility for assessing LTPA among individuals with SCI. These results also highlight measurement constraints of the lifestyle activity and cumulative activity categories.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| 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".