Development and Evaluation of an Activity Measure for People with Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop and conduct a preliminary assessment of the content validity, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity of the Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury (PARA-SCI), a new physical activity measure for people with SCI. METHODS: The scale format, interview guidelines, and activity intensity classification system were developed and content validated using qualitative and quantitative methodologies in multiple samples of people with SCI and their caregivers. Test-retest reliability (1-wk interval) was examined by administering the PARA-SCI via telephone to 102 men and women with SCI. Convergent validity was examined by assessing relationships between PARA-SCI scores and activity levels as determined by indirect calorimetry (N = 14). RESULTS: In the reliability study, intraclass correlations ranged from 0.45 to 0.91 for the various PARA-SCI activity categories and intensities. In the validity study, correlations between PARA-SCI scores and indirect calorimetry estimates of activity ranged from 0.27 to 0.88. CONCLUSIONS: The PARA-SCI shows promise as a measure of physical activity for people with SCI. Further validation research is encouraged using broader samples and alternative validation techniques.
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".