The Physical Activity Recall Assessment for Individuals with SCI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
0772 Developing an understanding of the long-term health and functional benefits of physical activity participation for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) has been limited by the lack of a reliable and valid measure of physical activity suitable for this population. The Physical Activity Recall Assessment for individual with SCI (PARASCI) was developed to meet this research need. Administered in a semi-structured telephone interview format, the PARA-SCI is a self-report measure of physical activity that provides an estimate of total time spent performing mild, moderate and heavy intensity activities of daily living (ADL) and leisure time physical activity (LTPA) over a three-day period. PURPOSE: To examine the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the PARA-SCI LTPA subscale. METHODS: For reliability testing, 101 men and women (Mage = 38.8 ± 11.1y; Myears post injury = 11.6 ± 9.81y) with SCI (para n = 47, tetra n = 54) completed the PARA-SCI twice in a two-week period. For validity testing, 48 men and women (Mage = 38.3 ± 11.9y;Myears post injury = 9.76 ± 8.29y) with SCI (para n = 22, tetra n = 26) completed the PARA-SCI and a progressive arm ergometer (Monark Ergomedic 828E, Sweden) exercise test. Expired gases were collected during the test (MedGraphics VO2000, St. Paul, MN) to determine VO2peak. RESULTS: Intraclass correlations for the test-retest data were .79, .59, .43 and .91 for total, mild, moderate and heavy LTPA respectively. Higher correlations for total and heavy LTPA are consistent with findings for existing physical activity measures (e.g. Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire). Relative VO2peak correlated with heavy LTPA for individuals with paraplegia(r = .54, p<.01) and mild LTPA for individuals with quadriplegia (r = .43, p = .03). CONCLUSIONS: These findings lend preliminary support for the reliability and validity of the PARA-SCI LTPA subscale as a measure of physical activity among individuals with SCI. Supported by CIHR grant #MOP-57778
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".