Developing an Instrument for Identifying Coping Strategies Used by the Elderly to Remain Autonomous
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Behavioral or cognitive coping strategies may be defined as attitudes developed via life experience to minimize the functional impacts of an impairment or disability that thereby enable the elderly to continue participating in their social environment. The objective of this study was to develop an instrument that was capable of identifying the ways and methods used by the elderly whenever obstacles arise and to assess four psychometric qualities. DESIGN: The Inventory of Coping Strategies Used by the Elderly is a questionnaire that includes a list of almost 100 behavioral and cognitive strategies. It is based on two Likert scales: the frequency of use of a given strategy and the satisfaction felt by the person whenever he or she used the strategy in an everyday situation. RESULTS: Reliability analysis showed intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.80-0.89. Discriminant analysis showed that the inventory differentiated the seniors' club subjects from the other three groups. This first survey involved a sample of 64 subjects aged > or =65 yr, classified among four subgroups of different levels of autonomy. Content validation was performed with the assistance of four experts in gerontology and measurement and evaluation. Internal consistency analysis made it possible to select the items in relation to which items correlated most with the overall score from among the initial list of 114 items. CONCLUSIONS: This instrument will enable health professionals to familiarize themselves with the coping strategies of both normal seniors and those who are involved in the adaptation and rehabilitation process. When such strategies are lacking, action should be taken to develop or reinforce them to prevent the loss of autonomy.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".