MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Developing an Instrument for Identifying Coping Strategies Used by the Elderly to Remain Autonomous

2002· article· en· W2011641854 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAging, Health, and Disability
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)Intraclass correlationLikert scaleCognitionRehabilitationMedicineApplied psychologyAutonomyClubActivities of daily livingPsychologyClinical psychologyDiscriminant validityInternal consistencyGerontologyPsychometricsPhysical therapyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it