HIV and disability: a pilot study exploring the use of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills to measure daily life performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Limitations in performing activities of daily living (ADL) are important indicators of health and overall wellness, yet relatively few studies specifically identify the ADL abilities of people living with HIV/AIDS (PHAs). Given the wide range of abilities and ages of PHAs, there is an urgent need to utilize an assessment of ADL ability that can validly evaluate those who are very able, as well as those who are very disabled, without the presence of ceiling or floor effects, to provide sensitive measures to detect change. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gather preliminary evidence of the validity of using the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) with PHAs. METHODS: By utilizing existing data records of PHAs from the international AMPS database, we explored (a) demographic factors; (b) person response validity by examining person and individual item goodness-of-fit to the AMPS measurement model; and (c) trends in ADL abilities of PHAs. FINDINGS: There were 137 data records in the international AMPS database (0.08% of the database). Goodness-of-fit analyses revealed that >90% of the individuals in the sample fit AMPS measurement model and >99% of the individual item ratings fit the model. More than 80% of the data record had ADL motor abilities that were significantly lower than age expectations, and 67% had ADL process ability measures that were significantly lower than age expectations. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the AMPS is a valid measure of ADL ability for PHAs. Coupled with the lower than expected number of AMPS data records for PHAs and the significant ADL ability challenges that were encountered by this sample, this pilot study may indicate that PHAs encounter barriers to accessing rehabilitation services and/or may not receive referrals until significant ADL challenges are encountered.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".