Reliability and construct validity studies of an obstacle course assessment of wheelchair user performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to evaluate the reliability and construct validity of an obstacle course assessment of wheelchair user performance (OCAWUP). Seventeen experienced wheelchair users using three different propulsion methods (two hands, one hand and one foot or motorized wheelchair) were assessed twice on the 10 obstacles of the OCAWUP. To evaluate reliability, time (in seconds) and degree of ease (DE) in overcoming obstacles (four-level scale) were assessed by three occupational therapists. Construct validity was assessed by verifying whether the OCAWUP's global score of ease (GSE) varied with wheelchair propulsion methods and the functional independence measure (FIM). Intraclass correlation coefficients calculated for reliability of time and GSE were up to 0.74 for test-retest reliability and up to 0.97 for interrater reliability. Cohen's kappa coefficients calculated for DE reliabilities varied from 0.09 to 1.0 with degrees of association up to 65%. A significant difference (P<or =0.01) in GSE scores is shown between propulsion methods. A high significant correlation (rs=0.84, P< or =0.05) was found between GSE and scores of FIM items associated with mobility. Reliability of time and GSE is substantial or better. Reliability of DE is not as good, with a few items indicating poor reliability. OCAWUP's construct validity is good.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".