What Will They Think? The Relationship between Self-Presentational Concerns and Balance and Mobility Outcomes in Older Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND/STUDY CONTEXT: Indirect evidence suggests that concerns over the impressions made on others (self-presentational concerns) may be associated with balance-related outcomes in older adults, but no empirical evidence exists to support this speculation. The present study examined the relationship between self-presentational concerns (social anxiety, social physique anxiety, and self-presentational efficacy) and functional mobility, accounting for age, balance confidence, falls, and muscle strength. METHODS: Healthy women (60 years or older; N = 187) completed measures of self-presentational concerns, balance confidence, and fall history, and performed the timed up and go (TUG) test and a test of leg strength. Bivariate correlations were conducted. A hierarchical regression predicted TUG duration from the three self-presentational concerns, controlling for age, balance confidence, falls, and muscle strength to examine the unique variance in TUG duration explained by self-presentational concerns. RESULTS: Self-presentational efficacy was a significant predictor of TUG duration over and above that of age, balance confidence, falls, and muscle strength. The results also showed significant correlations between social anxiety and self-presentational efficacy and TUG duration, between all three self-presentational concerns and balance confidence, and between social physique anxiety and self-presentational efficacy and falls. CONCLUSIONS: Research is needed to examine the causal relationship between these outcomes. Investigating self-presentational concerns in older women may provide novel ways to impact balance-related outcomes in this population. Practical implications for clinicians are discussed, as the social and physical environment may influence self-presentational concerns in this population and subsequently impact assessment and treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".