Validity and Reliability of the Swedish Version of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale in People with Chronic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Swedish version of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale in people >1 year after stroke. METHOD: In a multi-centre study design, using initial cross-sectional data collection with follow-up, the timed up-and-go (TUG) test, 10 m timed walk (10TW), and 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) were performed; ABC scale and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) were completed; and falls history data were collected during one session. One week later, the ABC scale was sent to participants for a second rating. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated, and reliability was assessed via the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach alpha. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 67 people was included (mean age 68 y). The median score for the ABC scale changed from 57 at the first rating to 43 at the second; 19 participants (28%) reported falls during the previous 3 months. Scores on the ABC scale were moderately correlated with the TUG (r=-0.48), 10TW (r=-0.52), 6MWT (r=0.45), and SF-36 physical component summary score (r=0.43). Internal consistency was high for the ABC scale at test and retest (α=0.95-0.97). The ICC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: The Swedish version of the ABC scale is a valid and reliable measure for investigating balance confidence in people >1 year after stroke.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".