Validity of Using the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills to Determine the Need for Assistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the validity of using Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) measures as evidence of the need for assistance in the community. METHOD: In a retrospective analysis of existing data (N = 64,466), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated, and a split-sample method was used to validate the predictions. RESULTS: When identifying people who need assistance versus those who do not need assistance in the community, activity of daily living (ADL) motor and ADL process measures have fair and good discriminating value, respectively (areas under the ROC curves were .78 and .84). Evidence supports placing ADL motor and ADL process independence cutoff measures at 1.50 logits (sensitivity = .67, specificity = .72) and 1.00 logit (sensitivity = .81, specificity = .70), respectively. Accuracy was highest when matched motor and process decisions occurred (sensitivity = .85, specificity = .83). CONCLUSION: Evidence supports using ADL ability measures from the AMPS to provide evidence of a client's need for assistance in the community.
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 | 0.029 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".