Evaluation of the Late-Life Disability Instrument (LLDI) in Low-Income Older Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the construct and convergent validity of the 16 items of the Late-Life Disability Instrument (LLDI) in Latin American seniors. METHOD: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to assess the factor structure of frequency and limitation sub-scales of the LLDI. ANOVA and t test were used to determine the convergent and construct validity of the LLDI by exploring associations with physical performance tests, mobility limitations, depression, cognition, self-reported health, as well as with sex, education, and income. RESULTS: Factor analysis resulted in one-factor solution and acceptable model fit. Participants with better physical function, less mobility limitations, better self-reported health, and intact cognition reported more frequent activities and fewer limitations, indicating good convergent and construct validity of our measure. CONCLUSION: LLDI is a good instrument to assess disability in low-income populations. Further research is needed to include culturally acceptable activities for the frequency sub-scale.
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 | 0.011 | 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".